PDA

View Full Version : The End of the American Republic


Jenson71
04-17-2008, 08:23 AM
Lecture given by Dr. Philip Mauceri, Professor and Head in the University of Northern Iowa's Political Science department. He gave this lecture on Tuesday, and I took notes for the benefit of the chiefsplanet community and world, in general.

Dr. Mauceri sees some looming clouds on the horizon. He sees a military dominance in the U.S. There is unconventional war -- the rise of terrorist threats mirror the rise of the American empire.

He sees three specific trends.

1.) A growing military trend. Presidents have turned to the military to solve problems. Great example is the war on drugs. We attacked Panama for what was essentially a domestic problem. The Clinton presidency used military to stop genocide. And now, of course, we are fighting terrorism.

This has been a long, ongoing process. The U.S. has felt freer to use the military since the end of the Cold War. We have entered in nine countries since the Cold War ended. Madeline Albright said "What's the sense of having a large military if we don't use it?" That's kind of a scary mentality.

The military budget is 23% larger today than what it was during the Cold War era. One economist has written a book called "The Three Billion Dollar War." Such spending is not sustainable. There is also an ongoing process that is making the CIA more military focused, and not focused on the culture and context of different countries.

2.) People start to love their military. This might be a reaction to the Vietnam and Carter years. Wars became glamorous in the 1980s - Rambo, Top Gun. Today, Homeland Security glamorously invokes images of the Homeland, or the Motherland (think of USSR).

Reactions are fearful, and there is no debate if you are accused of being unpatriotic. When war is never-ending, and the military is so glamorous, it's a bad situation.

3.) Rapid executive power. In a presidential system, we sometimes turn to the president as a king. It's not like a parliamentary system like in Britain, where the prime minister can never attain that much power, and just be seen as the head of the government. Our president is head of the country. And there is this commander-in-chief status, too.

Symbols have played an important role in all of this. Saluting, for example. Reagan started saluting the military. You salute the uniform, though. Not even Eisenhower saluted when he became president. It's mixing the lines between the president and the military. And then of course, is the great picture of George W. Bush in his flight suit landing on the aircraft carrier.

There are new presidential trends that are giving the president more formal powers. The Military Commissions Act, and were the president was allowed to define torture as he saw it.


As the military, and in large part, the military industrial complex, comes to dominate our foreign and domestic situations, we have to wonder, is the American Republic on the verge of coming to an end?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 08:34 AM
If Krauthammer, a leading NC pundit, can gladly brag and boast that we are an Empire now then I'd say this is true. I say we crossed our Rubicon when we invaded Iraq although the empire had been building before that. Some was necessary on a temp basis but once the CW ended it was time to come home. We didn't do it with colonies but with bases. Some, however, are claiming that the empire is in it's dying phase already. The sun sets on all empires. They go broke and are not sustainable.

I'd say I agree with the article.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 09:37 AM
:spock:

The military budget is 23% larger today than what it was during the Cold War era.

Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html

National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1962-2007

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 09:46 AM
Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:


Let me check with Dr. Mauceri to get his actual quote. I write pretty accurate notes, but let me get his real claim.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 10:06 AM
Lecture given by Dr. Philip Mauceri, Professor and Head in the University of Northern Iowa's Political Science department. He gave this lecture on Tuesday, and I took notes for the benefit of the chiefsplanet community and world, in general.

Dr. Mauceri sees some looming clouds on the horizon. He sees a military dominance in the U.S. There is unconventional war -- the rise of terrorist threats mirror the rise of the American empire.

He sees three specific trends.

1.) A growing military trend. Presidents have turned to the military to solve problems. Great example is the war on drugs. We attacked Panama for what was essentially a domestic problem. The Clinton presidency used military to stop genocide. And now, of course, we are fighting terrorism.

This has been a long, ongoing process. The U.S. has felt freer to use the military since the end of the Cold War. We have entered in nine countries since the Cold War ended. Madeline Albright said "What's the sense of having a large military if we don't use it?" That's kind of a scary mentality.

The military budget is 23% larger today than what it was during the Cold War era. One economist has written a book called "The Three Billion Dollar War." Such spending is not sustainable. There is also an ongoing process that is making the CIA more military focused, and not focused on the culture and context of different countries.

2.) People start to love their military. This might be a reaction to the Vietnam and Carter years. Wars became glamorous in the 1980s - Rambo, Top Gun. Today, Homeland Security glamorously invokes images of the Homeland, or the Motherland (think of USSR).

Reactions are fearful, and there is no debate if you are accused of being unpatriotic. When war is never-ending, and the military is so glamorous, it's a bad situation.

3.) Rapid executive power. In a presidential system, we sometimes turn to the president as a king. It's not like a parliamentary system like in Britain, where the prime minister can never attain that much power, and just be seen as the head of the government. Our president is head of the country. And there is this commander-in-chief status, too.

Symbols have played an important role in all of this. Saluting, for example. Reagan started saluting the military. You salute the uniform, though. Not even Eisenhower saluted when he became president. It's mixing the lines between the president and the military. And then of course, is the great picture of George W. Bush in his flight suit landing on the aircraft carrier.

There are new presidential trends that are giving the president more formal powers. The Military Commissions Act, and were the president was allowed to define torture as he saw it.


As the military, and in large part, the military industrial complex, comes to dominate our foreign and domestic situations, we have to wonder, is the American Republic on the verge of coming to an end?


I'd have to agree with all of that but highlight the most important correlation I think.

Both of those correlations have been independent observations of mine. Though, I can't say I knew that Eisenhower didn't salute.

I've long time seen Homeland security as a kind of "child" of Motherland. It's just too, umm, similar not to draw that conclusion.

Then there's the whole "you can't support the troops and not support the war" ideology. The dissent-disloyalty smear and things like this.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 10:09 AM
As to his specific points:

1. His characterization of military spending is misleading, at best. Percentage of GDP is a more accurate measure of true spending priorities. As far as a more militaristic trend in society.....well, the Cold War ended in 1993. Since then, with the exception of Iraq....most interventions have been brief, and generally supported by our allies and even the UN, in most instances. As the sole superpower, such a role....is not unexpected. FWIW, I am of the "we should not have invaded Iraq so quickly; but since we did, and we are there....we broke it--we have to try to fix it" crowd.

If we want to debate the merits of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, fine. But that's an entirely other discussion.

* I'll address the rest....in a little bit.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 10:15 AM
Sounds like another kook professor.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 10:16 AM
If we want to debate the merits of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, fine. But that's an entirely other discussion.

Non-interventionist is a more accurate word.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 10:23 AM
As to his specific points:

1. His characterization of military spending is misleading, at best. Percentage of GDP is a more accurate measure of true spending priorities. As far as a more militaristic trend in society.....well, the Cold War ended in 1993. Since then, with the exception of Iraq....most interventions have been brief, and generally supported by our allies and even the UN, in most instances. As the sole superpower, such a role....is not unexpected. FWIW, I am of the "we should not have invaded Iraq so quickly; but since we did, and we are there....we broke it--we have to try to fix it crowd.

If we want to debate the merits of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, fine. But that's an entirely other discussion.

* I'll address the rest....in a little bit.

Why? Because it will, if we pull out, become a hot bed for terrorism? Why isn't it entirely possible that it already is or will be when we're done? Why isn't it entirely possible that our mere presence in the Middle East fuels this terrorism breeding?

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Non-interventionist is a more accurate word.

I prefer, neo-isolationist. :)

tiptap
04-17-2008, 10:34 AM
:spock:



Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html

National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1962-2007

It is important in looking at this graph that the 60's number represents Vietnam expenditures. AND that the last five years DOES NOT include off budget expenditures of IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS and the Military budget no longer includes Nuclear Weapon research and Development. If you include those expenditures than the number jumps up over 6% of GDP. Having defeated the Soviet Union at the end of the 80's one wonders why we couldn't cut back.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 10:38 AM
* I'll address the rest....in a little bit.

As to the rest:

2. I think your professor is confusing/conflating patriotism with militarism...the two are not one in the same. Patriotism tends to ebb and flow, yes. The 60s and Watergate...is certainly an example; in the 80s Patriotism did "rebound"...and after 9/11 it spiked. However, it's a pattern that is consistent with historical trends of the past...so it is not surprising in the least. And, unlike your professor, most us don't find it disturbing in the least. The ONLY disturbing trend would be if dissent/protest were quashed in the way totalitarian regimes quash such speech and debate. And despite the hyperbole we sometimes hear, that simply hasn't even come close to happening here. I suspect your prof's perspective, like many pacifist/"peace" types, is a reflection of his knee-jerk an ideologically motivate knee-jerk "anti-military" posture.

3. While there is some credence and legitimacy to the notion of the Imperial Presidency, it is over-blown and exaggerated by chicken-little leftist types. Furthermore, if we are looking for someone to "blame" for that development....that discussion would begin with "progressive" Presidents like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, and accelerated dramatically during the Presidencies of FDR and LBJ (FWIW, I consider each "good" or even "great" Presidents...even LBJ.)

Saluting has "militarized" culture? Please..... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 11:11 AM
It is important in looking at this graph that the 60's number represents Vietnam expenditures. AND that the last five years DOES NOT include off budget expenditures of IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS and the Military budget no longer includes Nuclear Weapon research and Development. If you include those expenditures than the number jumps up over 6% of GDP. Having defeated the Soviet Union at the end of the 80's one wonders why we couldn't cut back.

"Off budget" expenditures have played a role in every war in the history of the Republic.....I suspect today's shell game isn't any worse than those practiced in the past. It would be a good question to ask CONGRESS about though, wouldn't it? :shrug:

I'd agree I'd like to see a reduction....the problem is, the WOT and against "Islamic Extremism" is not something we can take lightly. I understand we can disagree....but even at 6%, it's not nearly as dire of a problem as the professor's demagoguery would suggest.

Why? Because it will, if we pull out, become a hot bed for terrorism? Why isn't it entirely possible that it already is or will be when we're done? Why isn't it entirely possible that our mere presence in the Middle East fuels this terrorism breeding?

Those are legitmate questions. However, I think it's naive to believe that a COMPLETE pull-out would solve any problems--and instead would very likely make things much, much worse. It's not as if they didn't hate us already....

BIG_DADDY
04-17-2008, 11:40 AM
We are one major terrorist attack away from a military government. The new America is right around the corner.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 11:59 AM
I prefer, neo-isolationist. :)

Which is why all your talk of being a centrist is bullshit.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 12:03 PM
Which is why all your talk of being a centrist is bullshit.

That's right, Mr. Kotter is on the left of the political spectrum. Just not as far as the hard left.

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 12:07 PM
The military budget is 23% larger today than what it was during the Cold War era.

I'm not keen on arguing most of this stuff, but want to focus on this stat. Is that raw dollars, or adjusted for inflation, or relative to GDP or what?

IMHO it's probably just raw dollars, and that means it's pretty worthless as a comparative.

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 12:08 PM
:spock:



Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html

National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1962-2007


I see you beat me to it. Well done.

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 12:10 PM
Which is why all your talk of being a centrist is bullshit.

Centrist relative to when? 2008 America or 1788 America? I'm not sure you and BEP are with us in this millenium, and I know how you love to define everything to the nth degree.

:p

vailpass
04-17-2008, 12:14 PM
Notes from a junior college lecture hall? Please.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 12:16 PM
Centrist relative to when? 2008 America or 1788 America? I'm not sure you and BEP are with us in this millenium, and I know how you love to define everything to the nth degree.

:p

To today and even more so compared to the original center. He used a standard neo-conservative line. Those guys are left of center.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 12:45 PM
That's right, Mr. Kotter is on the left of the political spectrum. Just not as far as the hard left.

I'm sure that from the perspective of the lunatic fringe neo-libertarian stratosphere that you and Isaac occupy along with other Paulite wackos.....would make it appear that way.

;)

Centrist relative to when? 2008 America or 1788 America? I'm not sure you and BEP are with us in this millenium, and I know how you love to define everything to the nth degree.

:p


The notion that Issac or BEP are anywhere near "mainstream" for America in 2008 is absolutely side-splitting hysterical.... LMAO

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 01:16 PM
Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:


Okay, I screwed up the quote. "According to the Pentagon's announced long-range plans, by 2009 its budget will exceed the Cold War average by 23 percent -- despite the absence of anything remotely resembling a so-called peer competitor."

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 01:20 PM
To today and even more so compared to the original center. He used a standard neo-conservative line. Those guys are left of center.

The last 80 or so years of election results count more for telling us where the center is than your opinion. Seriously -- what President since Harding/Coolidge/Hoover would you put RIGHT of center? If the answer is zero (or one, Ike maybe), then the center clearly isn't where you think it is.

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 01:22 PM
3. While there is some credence and legitimacy to the notion of the Imperial Presidency, it is over-blown and exaggerated by chicken-little leftist types. Furthermore, if we are looking for someone to "blame" for that development....that discussion would begin with "progressive" Presidents like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, and accelerated dramatically during the Presidencies of FDR and LBJ (FWIW, I consider each "good" or even "great" Presidents...even LBJ.)

Saluting has "militarized" culture? Please..... :rolleyes:

Saluting leads to a militarized presidency, I think he would say. The culture just responds, maybe, to the president's actions and symbols.

Why do you think the notion of a more powerful president than our country's original intent is exaggerated for our purposes? He did not argue that Bush has as much power as Joseph Stalin had. He argues that for our system, the executive has become too powerful.

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 01:22 PM
Okay, I screwed up the quote. "According to the Pentagon's announced long-range plans, by 2009 its budget will exceed the Cold War average by 23 percent -- despite the absence of anything remotely resembling a so-called peer competitor."


The question remains -- 23% OF WHAT?

I think the comparison is raw unadjusted dollars, which makes the whole thing invalid on its face.

You can argue inflation-adjusted dollars if you want. You can argue relative to GDP if you want. And we can argue about Vietnam being on-budget versus Afghanistan/Iraq being off-budget if you want.

But you CANNOT use raw dollars. It makes it meaningless at best, and misleading at worst.

Amnorix
04-17-2008, 01:23 PM
the executive has become too powerful.


With this, I agree. But it's partly Congress' fault -- they abdicate responsibility so they can pass the buck and not have to share the blame. It's pathetic.

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 01:25 PM
2. I think your professor is confusing/conflating patriotism with militarism...

No, I think he purposely separated them. Patriotism can be good. Militarism can be very bad.

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 01:38 PM
The question remains -- 23% OF WHAT?

I think the comparison is raw unadjusted dollars, which makes the whole thing invalid on its face.

You can argue inflation-adjusted dollars if you want. You can argue relative to GDP if you want. And we can argue about Vietnam being on-budget versus Afghanistan/Iraq being off-budget if you want.

But you CANNOT use raw dollars. It makes it meaningless at best, and misleading at worst.

With inflation rates from 2007, the Cold War average was a little over $400 billion. 2009's budget calls for $515 billion.

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/milspend.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/2009_Budget_Rollout_Release.pdf

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Saluting leads to a militarized presidency, I think he would say. The culture just responds, maybe, to the president's actions and symbols.

Why do you think the notion of a more powerful president than our country's original intent is exaggerated for our purposes? He did not argue that Bush has as much power as Joseph Stalin had. He argues that for our system, the executive has become too powerful.

The culture "responds?" The theory, IMHO, is ridiculously simplistic. The culture has become more militaristic, because many (if not most) understand the possible threat we are confronted with. Folks like your prof view it as unwarranted....as "hysteria" even (as many history books are fond of saying)....yet Pearl Harbor happened. Japanese and Nazi attrocities happened. Over half of the world was under totalitarian communist regimes at one point in the 80s....before the fall of communism. 2000 people died on 9/11...and radical Islam is actively planning more of the same. What is the culture suppose to do? Bury their heads in the sand..... :shrug:

As far as the Imperial Presidency....we live in a Republic whose people determine the extent of executive power we wish to grant any given President. If as a nation he oversteps that power, or violates that trust....we have a mechanism in place to stop him. It's called impeachment. In addition, we can elect members of Congress who are committed to redistributing the imbalance of power--if we decide that one exists. Thus far we haven't done so; nor has the Supreme Court accepted the argument....that such power has exceeded that which is constitutionally permissable.

Your professor is entitled to an opinion, and that is precisely what this notion of...."the executive has become too powerful"....is--it's an opinion. Nothing more. At least until the American people, through their elected representatives, or the federal courts.....agree with him. I happen to philosophically agree with him, although I suspect he's more histrionic about it than I am.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:04 PM
Centrist relative to when? 2008 America or 1788 America? I'm not sure you and BEP are with us in this millenium, and I know how you love to define everything to the nth degree.

:p



Not to the nth degree. Just to the point of accuracy.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:06 PM
The notion that Issac or BEP are anywhere near "mainstream" for America in 2008 is absolutely side-splitting hysterical.... LMAO


That's about the nicest compliment you could give me. I wouldn't want to be in the mainstream, as it currently is. I'm not interested in being a part of the herd.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 04:07 PM
With this, I agree. But it's partly Congress' fault -- they abdicate responsibility so they can pass the buck and not have to share the blame. It's pathetic.

Precisely. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 04:13 PM
:)That's about the nicest compliment you could give me. I wouldn't want to be in the mainstream, as it currently is. I'm not interested in being a part of the herd.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's where you are comfortable.

I'll take a principled ideologue/zealot/extremist even....over ignorant/irrational/uneducated mainstream zombie ANY day of the week.

It's just too bad some extremists can't seem to understand there is also such a thing as principaled and educated pragmatism and consensus-minded-folks who understand how our republic really works.....as opposed to how many folks wish it would work.

:)

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 04:16 PM
No, I think he purposely separated them. Patriotism can be good. Militarism can be very bad.

I agree. If that's the case, he doesn't understand true militarism though.

Compare the numbers with those in, say, Nazi Germany....or Stalinist Russia....and get back to me. The comparison is laughable when you use real numbers rather than misleading ones intended to demagogue ignorant folks.

StcChief
04-17-2008, 04:19 PM
Sounds like another kook professor.
yeah. has tenure set in.

Reaper16
04-17-2008, 04:21 PM
Notes from a junior college lecture hall? Please.
UNI is not a junior college.

Reaper16
04-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Sounds like another kook professor.
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.

BIG_DADDY
04-17-2008, 04:27 PM
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.


He is up for the top 10 tards on the planet. He isn't even really from the right he likes all kinds of socialized shit.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 04:32 PM
UNI is not a junior college.

Like hell it isn't. I've partied on The Hill, I've done mushrooms in Schull hall with a couple of buddies of mine who played football for Darrel Mudra back in the day, and I've seen their curriculum.
UNI is a juco.
At least that is what we called it when I went to Iowa :)

Bowser
04-17-2008, 04:43 PM
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.

He's doing all he can to get patteeu to send him a friend request.

Reaper16
04-17-2008, 04:45 PM
Like hell it isn't. I've partied on The Hill, I've done mushrooms in Schull hall with a couple of buddies of mine who played football for Darrel Mudra back in the day, and I've seen their curriculum.
UNI is a juco.
At least that is what we called it when I went to Iowa :)
Nice; I concede the distinction as I'm guilty of calling Missouri Western State University a juco myself.

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 05:14 PM
The culture "responds?" The theory, IMHO, is ridiculously simplistic. The culture has become more militaristic, because many (if not most) understand the possible threat we are confronted with. Folks like your prof view it as unwarranted....as "hysteria" even

Possible threat, huh?

The culture being more militaristic has led to this "possible threat."

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 05:23 PM
Like hell it isn't. I've partied on The Hill, I've done mushrooms in Schull hall with a couple of buddies of mine who played football for Darrel Mudra back in the day, and I've seen their curriculum.
UNI is a juco.
At least that is what we called it when I went to Iowa :)

:bang:

vailpass
04-17-2008, 06:05 PM
:bang:

Just kidding man UNI is a solid school with some decent party life.
I've seen a few really good shows in the UNIdome too.
Kurt Warner lit that motha up!

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 07:39 PM
Possible threat, huh?

The culture being more militaristic has led to this "possible threat."

In your opinion.... :rolleyes:

Tell that to the families and relatives who lost loved ones on 9/11. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 07:47 PM
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.

Unfortunately, there is a very strong arrogant elitist attitude within the circles of higher education....and it tends, overwhelmingly, to have strong leftist bias. The best illustration I have come across it the tendency of leftists, for example, to defiine bigotry....as anyone who disagrees with them. That sort of condescension and arrogance is not only stupid, it cultivates animosity from the folks the ivory tower looks down its nose at.....

I'm saying this as someone who is an educator....who possesses multiple advanced degrees....and as someone who has attended four different college and universities. The situation is pretty much the same across the board, based on my experiences....and my observations.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 07:49 PM
In your opinion.... :rolleyes:

Tell that to the families and relatives who lost loved ones on 9/11. :shake:

Whoa now. 9/11 doesn't change the fact that the US has become militaristically oriented and that causes "possible threats" as he points out.

I don't see why that's such an absurd idea.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Unfortunately, there is a very strong arrogant elitist attitude within the circles of higher education....and it tends, overwhelmingly, to have strong leftist bias. The best illustration I have come across it the tendency of leftists, for example, to defiine bigotry....as anyone who disagrees with them. That sort of condescension and arrogance is not only stupid, it cultivates animosity from the folks the ivory tower looks down its nose at.....

I'm saying this as someone who is an educator....who possesses multiple advanced degrees....and as someone who has attended four different college and universities. The situation is pretty much the same across the board, based on my experiences....and my observations.

Again, you're spouting off nonsense. Bigotry - now a days, is defined by BOTH sides the way you define it there.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2008, 10:30 PM
Again, you're spouting off nonsense. Bigotry - now a days, is defined by BOTH sides the way you define it there.

Your assertion, may be....to a limited degree, true....but the problem is....higher education is dominated, overwhelmingly by a strong liberal bias. Which makes condescension of this type, coming from institutions of "higher learning"...both hypocritical and more egregious--at least insofar as "higher education" is concerned.

FWIW, if we were discussing....eg, evangelical religious group...the opposite would certainly be true. The problem is, the mainstream media and popular culture....doesn't give evangelical folks, no matter their level of education, near the "credibility" they give to similarly situated bastions of left wing ideological zealotry....such as universities.

Thus, left wing bias in universtities is a more problematic issue, IMHO....than right wing bias in evangelical groups, because the press refuses to divulge, and belabor, that inherent bias to the "public."

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 10:36 PM
Your assertion, may be....to a limited degree, true....but the problem is....higher education is dominated, overwhelmingly by a strong liberal bias. Which makes condescension of this type, coming from institutions of "higher learning"...both hypocritical and more egregious--at least insofar as "higher education" is concerned.

I'll agree that higher education seems to be more liberal. However, I must ask this:

Is there a reason? Perhaps more education = liberal lean? Has anyone done a study on this?

(I can say my Biz professor is an O'Reilly guest frequnetly and is pretty conservative. And he's got a JD and PHD. Of course, he's a huge fruit, creep, and annoying guy......)


FWIW, if we were discussing....eg, evangelical religious group...the opposite would certainly be true. The problem is, the MSM and pop culture....doesn't give those folks near the "credibility" they give to similarly situated bastions of left wing ideological zealotry....such as universities.

You say this as a bad thing. I would much rather give time to an educated mass than an uneducated mass despite any leanings. Evangelicals prove time and time again that ignorance is bliss and they don't really understand anything. See my "I was unaware..." thread.


Thus, left wing bias in universtities is a more problematic issue, IMHO....than right wing bias in evangelical groups, because the press refuses to divulge, and belabor, that inherent bias to the "public."

Yes, but if they did belabor that bias to the public they a) wouldn't be trusted and b) would create a stereotype in which conservatives who get air time would be deemed "liberal" because they're appearing. If you see what I'm saying.

Reaper16
04-18-2008, 01:04 AM
Nearly every university has a business department. Generally a conservative bunch, they are, in my experience.

I don't know that, on the whole, the left bias is significantly in front of right bias in academia. I'll acknowledge that its there, but I don't know if it is as pronounced as it is made out to be.

CHIEF4EVER
04-18-2008, 04:34 PM
I don't know that, on the whole, the left bias is significantly in front of right bias in academia. I'll acknowledge that its there, but I don't know if it is as pronounced as it is made out to be.

Here's a little experiment to find out if it is as pronounced as advertised for yourself. Simply make it known that you are either a) a conservative (especially a Republican), b) believe in GOD or c) both. Post the results here on the Planet.

Calcountry
04-18-2008, 05:44 PM
We are one major terrorist attack away from a military government. The new America is right around the corner.
Hussein would make us bow down to him.

Bowser
04-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Hussein would make us bow down to him.

Don't you guys in Cali bow down to the Guvahnator?

Bearcat2005
04-18-2008, 06:52 PM
As to his specific points:

1. His characterization of military spending is misleading, at best. Percentage of GDP is a more accurate measure of true spending priorities. As far as a more militaristic trend in society.....well, the Cold War ended in 1993. Since then, with the exception of Iraq....most interventions have been brief, and generally supported by our allies and even the UN, in most instances. As the sole superpower, such a role....is not unexpected. FWIW, I am of the "we should not have invaded Iraq so quickly; but since we did, and we are there....we broke it--we have to try to fix it" crowd.

If we want to debate the merits of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, fine. But that's an entirely other discussion.

* I'll address the rest....in a little bit.

Comparing it to GDP was the first thought that came to mind when I saw the lecture notes. Secondly I believe your latter point refers to the Hegamonic Stability Theory.

plbrdude
04-18-2008, 07:44 PM
We are one major terrorist attack away from a military government. The new America is right around the corner.

and i thought i was the only one who thought like that around here.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 06:38 AM
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.

The animosity toward higher education institutions is not anti-intellectual, it's an opposition to what is perceived to be left wing indoctrination.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZoDjo4syL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

The cure Horowitz offers to the propagandizing of the bottom 10 percent of the professorate is called The Academic Bill of Rights. The context and story behind Indoctrination U is the author's attempt to gain publicity for the proposition. Having it enacted by state legislatures was never his primary goal. What he sincerely desired was for universities to preemptively adopt its essence into their own bylaws.

The Bill itself is reproduced in an appendix. Its language is well-crafted and rather innocuous, yet one would never know this from the reaction it received from its critics. They dubbed it "crazy, Orwellian, a witch hunt," and totalitarian in nature. Their disparagement is perhaps a ruse to better enable them to protect their own privilege as tenets like, "No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political or religious beliefs" is not the stuff of McCarthyism. Although, should it be rigidly interpreted, a clause like, "Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination" would completely threaten the activists' way of life. Commandments like that are far more threatening than having their beloved Fairness Doctrine applied to network news broadcasts or NPR.

Those who actually discussed the initiative were generally dismissive. One proclaimed it a "solution in search of a problem." How much better off the country would be if such a view was correct. The liberal arts programs within our universities have become leftist bastions whose purpose is no longer to pursue truth. Unlike with the sciences, whose colleges are the finest in the world, numerous liberal arts departments have become completely politicized and are little more than ad hoc centers of agitprop. - Bernard Chapin reviewing "Indoctrination U"

patteeu
04-19-2008, 06:41 AM
Whoa now. 9/11 doesn't change the fact that the US has become militaristically oriented and that causes "possible threats" as he points out.

I don't see why that's such an absurd idea.

It's an absurd idea because we don't have a militaristic culture and it was even less so prior to 9/11.

Mr. Kotter
04-20-2008, 02:08 PM
The animosity toward higher education institutions is not anti-intellectual, it's an opposition to what is perceived to be left wing indoctrination.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZoDjo4syL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Horowitz, from what I know of his views, is pretty close to the mark on this matter.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 02:16 PM
Horowitz, from what I know of his views, is pretty close to the mark on this matter.

What exactly does it purport?

alanm
04-20-2008, 03:27 PM
Notes from a junior college lecture hall? Please.
Northern Iowa. Not a JC and not a bad school. Jenson has shown it's a pretty liberal school though. But what do you want?

alanm
04-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Why is there so much anti-intellectualism amongst the right? If not anti-intellectualism, then certainly there is animosity towards at least higher education.
It's not that. It's that university's discriminate in hiring those who lean to the right. If it weren't true you'd see more diversity of thought on campus.
That and the whole brain washing thing. ;)

Hydrae
04-20-2008, 04:09 PM
So if the professors on campuses around the country are so wrong thinking, why do we value what they teach so much? We like to highly reward people who put up the money, party for 4 years, learn from wrongthinking professors with nicely paid positions. What in that list makes us do this if these profs are so incorrect?

JohnnyV13
04-20-2008, 11:16 PM
I'll agree that higher education seems to be more liberal. However, I must ask this:

Is there a reason? Perhaps more education = liberal lean? Has anyone done a study on this?

(I can say my Biz professor is an O'Reilly guest frequnetly and is pretty conservative. And he's got a JD and PHD. Of course, he's a huge fruit, creep, and annoying guy......)




Why should it surprise you that universities have a liberal bias in our society? Think about it for a minute. How do professors make a name for themselves? They need to publish interesting studies. To do this work, they usually need research grants, and the primary source of grants is government funding. If the government isn't big, there won't be grant money.

There is further self interest here as well. If the government engages in social engineering, who is likely to get appointments to do the heavy lifting? U got it, some professor who convinces key politicians that their theory is the "right answer". Without a big government engaged in social engineering, it becomes far more difficult for some professor to put his theories to the test in a large scale.

Business professors, however, are quite a different kettle of fish. They see government regulation and social engineering as obstacles to efficient business management. Thus, government must be overcome to achieve their goals. For example, during the 80's, notice how business professors gained prominence due to all the "financial wizardry" that followed on Wall Street after Reagan de-regulated financial institutions?

The bottom line is that most professors lean left because they become far bigger "players" in a nation that uses government to re-engineer society.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:48 AM
What exactly does it purport?

Here is a Amazon.com user review from Bernard Chapin to give you an idea:

Should Conservadom, in the spirit of positive reinforcement, ever decide to create awards for its most valuable commentators, it is quite likely that David Horowitz will be summoned to the podium each and every year until the time of his death. Few other figures have so resolutely, and creatively, battled the left over the course of the past two decades.

The cure Horowitz offers to the propagandizing of the bottom10 percent of the professorate is called The Academic Bill of Rights. The context and story behind Indoctrination U is the author's attempt to gain publicity for the proposition. Having it enacted by state legislatures was never his primary goal. What he sincerely desired was for universities to preemptively adopt its essence into their own bylaws.

The Bill itself is reproduced in an appendix. Its language is well-crafted and rather innocuous, yet one would never know this from the reaction it received from its critics. They dubbed it "crazy, Orwellian, a witch hunt," and totalitarian in nature. Their disparagement is perhaps a ruse to better enable them to protect their own privilege as tenets like, "No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political or religious beliefs" is not the stuff of McCarthyism. Although, should it be rigidly interpreted, a clause like, "Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination" would completely threaten the activists' way of life. Commandments like that are far more threatening than having their beloved Fairness Doctrine applied to network news broadcasts or NPR.

Those who actually discussed the initiative were generally dismissive. One proclaimed it a "solution in search of a problem." How much better off the country would be if such a view was correct. The liberal arts programs within our universities have become leftist bastions whose purpose is no longer to pursue truth. Unlike with the sciences, whose colleges are the finest in the world, numerous liberal arts departments have become completely politicized and are little more than ad hoc centers of agitprop.

Many of our tenured luminaries even question whether there is such a thing as truth or objectivity at all. Their skepticism makes for all kinds of classroom mischief as they idolatrously worship the troika of race, class, and gender. What "social justice" should mean is that the citizenry has the right to keep what they've earned, but, in the mouths of radicals, it is morphed into a description of government's attempt to pit one social group against another via an arbitrary, and authoritarian, redistribution of wealth scheme. Political correctness functions as the academy's Cerberus. It tyrannizes the marketplace of ideas and uses wonderland logic to turn its critics into peddlers of hate speech.

***SPRAYER
07-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Why We Whisper
by: Melinda Zosh, July 24, 2008

Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) said that unwed pregnant women should not be schoolteachers, and the media accused him of intolerance. What the media did not reveal, however, were the constituents who whispered after the cameras disappeared.

“People would whisper ‘you’re right, we’re with you,’” said Sen. Demint. “They did not want to say that anything was wrong, because they know that’s hateful, wrong and politically incorrect. I notice how much people whisper.”

Sen. Demint more than noticed the whispers, and he wanted his constituents’ voices to be heard. He wrote a book for all Americans called Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong.

Sen. Demint spoke about his book, which criticizes excessive government spending and government micro-management, to about 200 D.C. interns on Capitol Hill on June 21.

“What I’ve seen here on the side of Congress doesn’t give me a lot of hope. [The government] is focused on the next election, not the next generation,” said Sen. Demint.

Sen. Demint said America’s founding fathers focused on the next generation, and they supported limited federal involvement. “Our founders would be amazed at how much the federal government does today,” said Sen. Demint.

When America was founded, Americans did not need the federal government to create laws governing every aspect of their lives. This changed with the social unrest of the 1960s, according to Sen. Demint.

“Before the 1960s, the free society decided what was right and what was wrong … we knew that abortion and homosexuality were wrong,” said Sen. Demint. “[Then] the government came in and made laws and court rulings that switched that upside down.”

These “wrongs” which are not social norms, such as the rejection of the traditional family—a father, mother and children—have contributed to social decay and monetary costs. Unwed births cost 150 billion dollars per year, and drugs and drinking correlate to unwed births, according to Sen. Demint.

“You can’t create a successful society…where family life is deteriorated,” said Sen. Demint.

“As the culture declines and people become more dysfunctional they need more help from the government,” said Sen. Demint. “People respond when you start dumping the responsibility back on them. When you reward their [good] behavior, you get more of it.”

As Americans depend on the government more, they stop holding elected officials accountable for their actions, especially government spending. Sen. Demint referred to the 50 billion dollar Aids to Africa Bill that Congress just passed. He said Congress would have passed the bill if it were 100 billion dollars.

“Last week in the Senate, we approved the biggest foreign aid bill in our history; it’s waste and corruption that we’ve never seen before,” said Sen. Demint. “Instead of telling people the truth that we need to cut back spending, we’re spending like no tomorrow.”

“If we keep spending, the value of the dollar is going to keep dropping. We export 700 billion dollars to buy foreign oil,” said Sen. Demint. “As the value of the dollar drops, the more those dollars come home, and the more that value drops.”

Sen. Demint said it’s up to Americans to use their weapons—voices and words—to maintain their Constitutional rights. “As long as America is calling on the federal government to do more, we’re losing a little bit of freedom,” said Sen. Demint.

Sen. Demint argued that freedom is only free if Americans fight for their freedoms.

“It’s going to take Americans to stand up and fight like they’ve never fought before,” said Sen. Demint. “This country is about freedom, it’s about character, and religiously-informed values.”

Sen. Demint said that even during times of economic trouble, war and division, a few people can make a noticeable difference.

“You have to believe, be committed, be informed and be willing to speak out,” said Sen. Demint. “I’m convinced that a few people who are enthusiastic, who have the right ideas, can get many people to follow them...”


Melinda Zosh is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail mal.kline@academia.org

penguinz
07-24-2008, 02:42 PM
:spock:



Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html

National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1962-2007That chart has nothing to do with whether or not the spending on military is 23% higher in real or inflationary dollars.

StcChief
07-24-2008, 02:53 PM
We are one major terrorist attack away from a military government. The new America is right around the corner.

YEAH...what I and most thinking Americans should be worried about....

no time for a softie in charge

Adept Havelock
07-24-2008, 03:04 PM
Why We Whisper
by: Melinda Zosh, July 24, 2008

Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) said that unwed pregnant women should not be schoolteachers, and the media accused him of intolerance. What the media did not reveal, however, were the constituents who whispered after the cameras disappeared.

“People would whisper ‘you’re right, we’re with you,’” said Sen. Demint. “They did not want to say that anything was wrong, because they know that’s hateful, wrong and politically incorrect. I notice how much people whisper.”

Sen. Demint more than noticed the whispers, and he wanted his constituents’ voices to be heard. He wrote a book for all Americans called Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong.

Sen. Demint spoke about his book, which criticizes excessive government spending and government micro-management, to about 200 D.C. interns on Capitol Hill on June 21.

“What I’ve seen here on the side of Congress doesn’t give me a lot of hope. [The government] is focused on the next election, not the next generation,” said Sen. Demint.

Sen. Demint said America’s founding fathers focused on the next generation, and they supported limited federal involvement. “Our founders would be amazed at how much the federal government does today,” said Sen. Demint.

When America was founded, Americans did not need the federal government to create laws governing every aspect of their lives. This changed with the social unrest of the 1960s, according to Sen. Demint.

“Before the 1960s, the free society decided what was right and what was wrong … we knew that abortion and homosexuality were wrong,” said Sen. Demint. “[Then] the government came in and made laws and court rulings that switched that upside down.”

These “wrongs” which are not social norms, such as the rejection of the traditional family—a father, mother and children—have contributed to social decay and monetary costs. Unwed births cost 150 billion dollars per year, and drugs and drinking correlate to unwed births, according to Sen. Demint.

“You can’t create a successful society…where family life is deteriorated,” said Sen. Demint.

“As the culture declines and people become more dysfunctional they need more help from the government,” said Sen. Demint. “People respond when you start dumping the responsibility back on them. When you reward their [good] behavior, you get more of it.”

As Americans depend on the government more, they stop holding elected officials accountable for their actions, especially government spending. Sen. Demint referred to the 50 billion dollar Aids to Africa Bill that Congress just passed. He said Congress would have passed the bill if it were 100 billion dollars.

“Last week in the Senate, we approved the biggest foreign aid bill in our history; it’s waste and corruption that we’ve never seen before,” said Sen. Demint. “Instead of telling people the truth that we need to cut back spending, we’re spending like no tomorrow.”

“If we keep spending, the value of the dollar is going to keep dropping. We export 700 billion dollars to buy foreign oil,” said Sen. Demint. “As the value of the dollar drops, the more those dollars come home, and the more that value drops.”

Sen. Demint said it’s up to Americans to use their weapons—voices and words—to maintain their Constitutional rights. “As long as America is calling on the federal government to do more, we’re losing a little bit of freedom,” said Sen. Demint.

Sen. Demint argued that freedom is only free if Americans fight for their freedoms.

“It’s going to take Americans to stand up and fight like they’ve never fought before,” said Sen. Demint. “This country is about freedom, it’s about character, and religiously-informed values.”

Sen. Demint said that even during times of economic trouble, war and division, a few people can make a noticeable difference.

“You have to believe, be committed, be informed and be willing to speak out,” said Sen. Demint. “I’m convinced that a few people who are enthusiastic, who have the right ideas, can get many people to follow them...”


Melinda Zosh is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail mal.kline@academia.org

Heh. Who knew SHTSPRAYER was in favor of Social Engineering by the government (though a Right-Wing interpretation of it)? LMAO

Guru
07-24-2008, 04:42 PM
Cool. Fall of Rome.

tiptap
07-24-2008, 09:19 PM
:spock:



Perhaps (though I wonder--due to the deliberate misleading nature of this statement)....he means in flat dollar amounts.....but certainly not in REAL, inflation-adjusted, dollars.....here's a more realistic/fair look:

:hmmm:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html

National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1962-2007

We been through this before. None of the expenditures for Iraq or Afghanistan are represented on that chart. Add in the extra expenditures by the State department for private armies, the cost for Nuclear research and development that is part of the Energy department and then we can talk about your chart.