Originally Posted by spence
I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.
So if I plant a bomb in your bathroom ventilation it would have to be evaluated in the context of the tension caused by my dissatisfaction in the way you responded to my complaints that you would not do what I want.
That's not to say it was right, . . .
Would you say it was wrong?
. . . but to ignore the social climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.
I have commented on that "climate," did not ignore it. But those events were not merely surrounded by a social climate, they were a driving force in the temperature of that climate. They were just as much, or more, the elements surrounding the climate. And it would be irresponsible to claim that those events and their perpetrators were the victims of a social climate.
Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.
As JohnnyD has commented more than once, correlation is not causation. If unpopular foreign wars were a cause of civil violence, we should be having young folks bombing all over the time frame of 2003 to the present. The Vietnam war, as ScottW has documented, was not the reason for Weatherman violence. There was a far greater ideological motive for their actions. The anti-war stance was a popular way to gain mass approval for their wider agenda. The generational shift was just another in a continuous shift since the so-called Progressive Era--which did not actually end but has been continually expanding its transformation of American society. Remember Woodrow Wilson's formula for societal change:
"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he [the agent of change] wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way . . . Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."
I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.
Yes, but those day to day politics are not separate from "social progressive influence." The politics are the legal force which has been nearly constantly shifting to greater progressive governance rather than constitutional governance. Those politics grant legality to social progressive influence.
So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...
For one who is constantly making drive-by assumptions such as you have made throughout this thread then questioning whether I am, is beyond ironic. I haven't used the word "honoring" nor do I see her hiring as unusual. I have pointed out that it is actually appropriate that Columbia hire her because they are at this time quite similar in ideology, and that she is a product of academic progressivism which not only influenced her and her fellow travelers, but was influenced by them. They are probably a match that deserve each other. I am, personally, not comfortable with educational systems injecting political ideology into the classroom. I certainly experienced it in my student days and can only assume, from the frequent reports of it, that it has proliferated. Perhaps she is totally purified from such inclinations. I doubt it, and that is my prerogative. It is from that "perception" that I speak.
If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."
That's why perception is not reality. There are way more than a "few" who vote for "liberals," a moniker I avoid since, as I've explained above "liberals" are not liberal. I don't know what these voters who keep voting for "liberals" (progressives) perceive their personal identity is. But it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. I doubt that most voters, and even more non-voters, have a clue to what a progressive is, nor about the progressive agenda. If they did, they might vote differently. Maybe not. Maybe they identify with the government goodies bestowed on them rather than by whatever label they or their politicians are identified.
That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.
Why is it a stretch to say they shed violence because they no longer need it because society has shifted in their direction and placed them in positions of influence to make furthering their cause easier? Are you making another assumption?
Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?
The real baseline is the Constitution. Though not too long ago it was denied, there is no longer a denial that we have drifted far from that document and that progressives, fundamentally, wish to rule without it. That is so obvious, not only by the actual method of administrative governance through regulatory agencies, and ridiculously interpreted court cases, but the outright public assertion by influential progressives like Prof. Seidman that the Constitution should be abandoned.
The Constitution was a "real" baseline. What we have now is an arbitrary, shifting, and constantly more centralized one.
Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.
Conservatism/Constitutionalism accommodates for change. It is called amendment. And it accommodates much change at local levels by will of the people. Centralized progressivism overrides all that. And often without "nuance" but with in-your-face unconstitutional power.
"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.
-spence
|