Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
When even you know that you cannot debate what the Republicans are saying, when what they are saying is so irrefutably correct, there's always the race card. Say it ain't so, Sundance.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ernment-648982
I am 'racist' and 'afraid of change'.
When the Nazis occupied France, some French formed the resistance, to fight back. Would Redford accuse them of being 'afraid of change', because they didn't embrace Hitler?
You know what? When the 'change' is mathematically guaranteed to cause ruin, you're goddamned right I'm afraid of it.
Are these people really this stupid? Does Redford genuinely believe that fiscal responsibility is based on racism? Or do these billionaire liberals want the economy to collapse, because that will make them even more wealthy than the rest of us? I ponder that sometimes. In the short-term, liberal economics eliminates economic upward mobility for the poor, by enslaving them to welfare. In the long term, te entitlements that liberals support, cannot fail to bring large scale economic harm to those that are not filthy rich.
Is that their intent? To keep the lines short on the ferry to Nantucket? |
Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.
To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.
"It is so paralyzed, and the worst of it is that it's paralyzed by intention. There's a body of congressional people that want to paralyze the system."
First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.
The Constitution, actually, built in the possibility of "paralysis" with a system of checks and balances. Paralysis against harmful and unconstitutional legislation is a good thing. As you point out, paralyzing a Hitleresque system would be good. But, the congressional body that Redford seems to favor doesn't want to be checked or balanced out of whatever idea their mastermind wishes to impose on the rest of us. And, of course, since they are the smart ones, whatever idea they have is good.
He adds "I think what's unfortunately underneath it is racism involved, which is really awful."
As you point out, Byrd was a clan member (and yes a grand poohbah of the KKK, wizard or some other high position), but Spence points out that was decades ago and that he reformed. Of course, progressives, if they ever had a fault, are capable of reforming. "Conservatives," on the other hand, can never do so. Because, after all, they are by definition "conservative"--resistant to change. Well, there's an irony there. Politically "conservative" means to preserve individual freedom, which is the most potent force for change.
But there is also an ignorance, willful or not, or a hypocrisy, in Redford's contention. Not only is he actually ignorant of the motivations of that "body of congress" which he rebukes (how could he possibly know unless he's an actual mind reader--and a telepathic one at that), but he is ignorant, or hypocritically dismissive, of the racism that exists in the rest of the congressional body, and the entire body politic. The black caucus for instance. And the voting blocks for the Democrat party such as the unions, have many racists in them. They just co-exist for political reasons which does not make them any less racists. But, I guess, only the supposed racism in that particular congressional body which Redford doesn't like is the "really awful" racism.
Then he says "It's not just racism. I think it's a group of people that are so afraid of change and they're so narrow-minded that when--you see, some people when they see change coming get so threatened by change they get angry and terrorized and they get vicious."
As you point out, it is not change that is threatening, but change for the worse, even change that threatens terror and tyranny against the people. But the progressive mantra includes "change" as a higher order ideology. "Change" is not a specific, it is a general ideological concept which embraces movement to newer, smarter, more progressive, and the wholly good. If for you it is "narrow-minded" to resist change for its own sake, then you are well on your way to being progressive. And those who "paralyze" that change may anger and terrorize you.
But to dwell on the simple-minded thoughts of a super-wealthy actor who lives on a 5,500 acre property in Utah, and who supports the nature conservancy, not of course to protect his own property and wealth from encroachment of the lumpen American "middle class", but for the good of all society (anybody been to Utah lately to see the wonders?) is a bit of distraction from reality. Then again, if hordes of folks actually did go there and tromp on the "pristine" beauty, requiring all the necessities and niceties of vacationers such as more roads, motels, hotels, airports, restaurants, retail stores, gas stations, etc., it would kind of mess with the conservancy stuff. Better to leave it to the few who can afford 5,500 acre places. Don't even think about building those rows and rows of middle-class houses and gated communities, and certainly not "lower class" ticky-tack houses and progressive high rise tenements for low income people. Nor all the commercial enterprises to support it. Better to leave it to the few who already live there, so long as they don't mess with the pristine nature and demand more capitalist entrepreneurs to raise their standards and make wealth available for their children. And to a few more wealthy large land owners. So long as not too many 5,500 or more acre plots are carved out of the pristine land.
Better to leave it to a few Redfords.