http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/21/george_will_addresses_cpac_2010.html

Walking through the interwebs I found this video and was amazed. It's rare I find a politician who is a proponent of so many of my views.

But here's the thing: we've been discussing socialism and capitalism around here recently and this video demonstrates the American values better than ever (in my opinion of course, subject to change and mockery).

It's relatively short and worth the watch even if you disagree with every other word Mr. Will says. What are some opinions on his speech? Agree/ disagree with the majority of what he said? Who thinks he's a genius (I do!)? Who thinks he's crazy?

i liked the joke about the people in the theatre and waiting for the bailout plan in case of emergency.

Other than that, i was unmoved. He was witty, but i cared neither this way nor that, but then again i am not a conservative (i am actally independant, and my feelings are influenced by all divisions, if that makes sense). I think he may have had some good points, like not depending on the government completely, but i did not like the how thing he said about liberials wanting equality but really want everyone to depend on government. I am all for equailty in all things, so maybe it was a personal offense, and quite frankly i am not a very overly political person...


In fact the only 'political' thing i will usually go out of my way to watch is Andy Rooney (though i do not always agree) and i doubt many, if any, would actually consider him a political figure.

Again, polotics is not my strong suit.

Is there a transcript somewhere? I can't get the sound up enough to hear him at all, no matter which controls I use here.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it in multiple parts on Youtube. He spends a lot of time cracking jokes, speaking about the state of things. Sounded like standard rhetoric to me. I thought it was telling, in the Youtube version, that the woman introducing him said, "he tells us what to think about". Frankly, I don't need anyone telling me what to think about, thanks.

Chances are pretty good that while he didn't say anything to incite fury, his views (and yours) probably don't align with mine. So I'll just say this: the whole conservative vs. liberal crap? It's getting old, and tired, and lame and sounding like a highschool clique. Jocks vs. preps maybe? It's easily the quickest way to make me stop listening to whatever it is the person had to say.

People like Will may be about as UN-goth as one can imagine, but unlike the would-be authoritarian socialists now running America I feel a whole lot safer and at ease around guys like Will who at the very least will leave you alone even if they're not crazy about you, than around the frightening crazies like the SEIU thugs and ACORN.

-- Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:58 pm --

A lot of people don't seem to realize that the very EXISTENCE of subcultures like that of the Goths directly depends on the healthy presence of a liberal democratic polity of which the US and England are the two most fundamental expressions. Polities like ours are essentially libertarian, individualistic, and widely tolerant.

People like Will and those like-minded are the best insurance that it continues that way.

I couldn't agree more sebastian! Too bad there aren't any politicians running for office that are remotely like Will...
And Lunamoth,

[backhanded slander]I totally agree. As soon as someone tells me he's fighting for good against evil I stop listening, so I can see where you're coming from. Sides are entirely meaningless; everyone's wrong at some point, so I don't see why people should create terms to refer to a set of ideas if no one can cling to them in a wholesome way. Parties are useless tools, ideals are impossible. Symbols are a form of brainwashing and the written word is a means to an end; only actions matter so ideas should be forgotten. [/backhanded slander]

If you believe the above, then I will find it hard to discuss these things with you. If you simply don't understand the words 'conservative' and 'liberal,' that's another matter. Unlike in the case of jock vs. preps both sides stand for something and something specific enough that one side has to be right and one side has to be wrong. It's like saying that this racism vs tolerance crap is getting old.

*Sigh* I understand the point being eloquently and convincingly expressed here (and I mean that sincerely - I don't believe in dishing out "backhanded slander" unless absolutely forced).

But, unfortunately, "black-and-white" viewpoints are old. They were old by 1918, when millions of young men returned to their homes having come to understand that there are shades of grey. It's even more true today when "wearing the white hat" means being sent to your death to defend the honour of liars who claim that a country has weapons of mass destruction which don't - and never did - exist; who suppress the Truth to hide their agendas; and indulge in the greatest hypocrisy of all - protecting their dictatorships in the name of Liberty (please read about Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan - if your eyes aren't permanently closed by bias, it might well teach you something you clearly don't understand about the nature of our societies).

The establishment we protect is outmoded. It's time to try something else. And, anticipating your question, I don't pretend to know what that something else is - it's a case of "anywhere but here".

I'm running low on time today and so will probably have to finish these thoughts tomorrow, but to just briefly provide a few of the thoughts I've had in viewing that speech and reading through the comments that have been made thus far...



Have you tried the Republican Party?

In all seriousness, the membership of the so-called Republican Liberty Caucus (think "the Ron Paul people") has quite a bit in common with the views Mr. Will describes. They espouse themselves to be libertarians working within the GOP, believing that more effective in the practical sense than running as independents or Libertarians.

DarklyInclined:

As to relativist views, I disagree with those. The fact that the current "legitimate" political spectrum is measured from conservative to liberal (that is, right wing to centrist) rather than from conservative to radical is a very bad and limited dynamic that can only continue to shift the political center of gravity further rightward. But while I'm not nearly as absolutist in defining these things as Adze, I do consider "conservative" and "liberal" to have real historical meanings as terms. Conservatism refers to an aversion to the idea of change. One is hence a conservative to the degree that one opposes change in principle. Liberalism refers broadly to the assertion of individual autonomy in various forms, capacities, and senses. The fundamental thing conservativism has in common with liberalism is that both are bourgeois ideologies: the former generally belonging to the rural bourgeoisie and the latter generally to the urban bourgeoisie. "Balancing" two ruling class ideologies doesn't provide an alternative to the establishment. Rather, it makes for a right wing consensus.

I'll probably have more to say, including a more direct address of the contents of Mr. Will's speech, tomorrow.

Adze -
I do understand the words Conservative and Liberal. What I don't really get off on is people using them AS backhanded slander. As in, oh well I can't abide anything said by that person, 'cause they're one 'o them dern libruls! As in, if your (collective 'you') views don't match up with mine, you *must* be one of those [insert label here]. I, personally, am me. Just me. I have views and opinions on things, but resent being labelled, and doubly resent the implication that I have to be lumped in with a group of politicians I don't know, or potentially have never heard of. Maybe I don't like their views either.

And, I'm not entirely sure what your purpose of using that phrase in brackets was, but if your intent is an attempt to sidestep our little rules about debating the issue rather than the person, then we may have to excuse you from the Politics forum for a while.

As for me, though i understand why there are liberals and conservative, republican and democrats, i cannot see myself siding with any just because of the name they hold.

for me, all sides have lessons that can be both enlightening or in need of improvement. This is why i choose to look past the bs of labels in politics and try to see the person behind the words (that were probably written for him/her and not by him/her).

In his speech there were good points, as i said, but there were also things i did not like. Also, i do not like wit and 'humor' in a speech, unless it is an opening line or an ending line to ease tension in the crowd.

I like straightforward things. I want to be told as it is in a matter-o-fact manner (which is why i like Andy Rooney(again not actually a political figure), i may not like half the shit he says, but at least he is blunt). To me, joking or humor in a speech is like a red-herring or, in least, rudeness to the party getting ridiculed in the joke. Whenever i hear these things, i always feel myself wondering what their intention is in saying what it is they are saying.

To me, it is like dumb blonde jokes. You think they mean nothing, it is just for fun, but when you see a blonde most WILL attribute one of those jokes on her/him just for the color of their hair...

Basically I try to assess a person based on their character and not their 'beliefs'. those can change. I was Christian, i am no longer. I use to hate metal (I was VERY young) but now it is practically all i listen to. Though I will always try to go with the person who has the most in common with what i want, i know that in the end they can just be saying what they say just to please, and have no intention of doing half the shit they say. Which is why i put so much value in character and personality.
A person's character and personality stays pretty steady and that is what i look at as being most valuable, no matter the political party involved., and though i do not see parties as being useless per-say, i do feel more would be done if they worked together for a common goal and put away hates for the other parties. And i firmly believe that everyone is wrong at some point or another- after all it is only human, not even our politicians are perfect.
And the rest of what you wrote in you backhanded slander i do not believe.

i hate to sound like a b**** or one of those people you hate, but i seriously do not like sides. Though i do think they have their place, i think it would be more beneficial for sides to come together than fight because you are from a different party. What bothers me more than anything is that so many fight over the pettiness of their differences than coming together in their similarities.

Then again everything i think about the world of politics could be utter crap and so I apologize to the people involved daily with these subjects whom might have been offended.

Anything genuinely outmoded will be replaced by the natural evolution of history, but, unlike totalitarian utopians, I believe that such developments must be organic, arising from the inner natures of those particular societies at particular times. You cannot force it by blood and violence and expect something better to replace it. It never does.

To continue, as promised, on my thoughts on the contents of Mr. Will's speech...

The most defining characteristic of it to me is its belligerent character. By this I mean his refusal to recognize any political opposition to right wing views as legitimate. He either states openly or implies that the Democrats and liberals in general are dangerously weak, anti-christian, and even potentially treasonous.

In the first connection, most of his speech revolves around how the Democrats and liberals in general are "soft" and promoters of "dependency". In explaining this, he relies not on a serious investigation of any sort, but on conspiracy theories, like that global warming is a grand intergovernmental plot to take over everyone's private lives. He explains that if the Democrats have their way, Americans will be crippled under the weight of parternalism and "socialism".

In the second connection, you'll note his association of "the cross" and "the 7 deadly sins" with his political opponents. Apparently somehow liberals and leftists bear responsibility for the execution of Jesus Christ. Kind of like how the Jews are a collection of Christ-killers you know.

In the final connection, you'll note his praising of the Mt. Vernon Statement. I think we should take a read to the statement being referenced. In a very thinly coated fashion, it portrays liberals in general and Barack Obama in particular as anti-constitutional and hence "dangerous". (Whereas the conservative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution inevitably balances right wing viewpoints and prevents them from going to autocratic extremes.)

As an interesting note, these are the same sorts of attacks the Nazis historically leveled against the Weimar Republic: it was dangerously weak, anti-christian, and treasonous. It's just an interesting parallel to note.



A preference for "can I see myself having a beer with this person?" over questions of what they stand for, and in particular seeking political "common ground" with everyone strikes as completely devoid of principles; capitulationist. That may be the prevailing approach to politics on the Democratic side anymore (see their insistence on bipartisan policy formation, as contrasted with GOP belligerence), but it just goes to show the thoroughly decayed state of American liberalism. That's one of the many very real reasons why I'm not a liberal.

Nazis were as contemptuous of constitutional principles as the left is, which is why Hitler forced through his 'enabling acts' shortly after he was elected [and always remember that Hitler WAS elected] to bypass and override normal parliamentary procedure and the Weimar constitution.

The left sees the American constitution as a frustrating barrier to achieving their aims, therefore most leftist constitutional theory and practice revolves around doing an end run around the constitution.

When that happens, you end up with a country run by the mere whims of men, not by laws and principles. Granted, I acknowledge that in reality it has always been much messier than what I outlined above, but being limited by a written constitution has prevented America from falling into the political extremes that have bedevilled Europe since the French Revolution.

-- Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 am --

Limitation of the powers of government should always be paramount, because if the 20th century has ANY overriding theme, it certainly must be to act as an object lesson for future generations as to what happens when the State acquires the status of a deity.

My problem with 'what people stand for' is that, from what i have seen, people will often change what they stand for according to the amount of votes the person might get for saying they believe it. They can pretend to be or beleive in something to get the vote, and then go into office and do the oppisite of what they said. if i see someone changing parties constantly, not trying to do as promised or just shows a lack of care for the people once being voted in, then i have no compassion for liking for that person, no matter if i share the person's views or not.



I felt as if you were implyng that i belog to a certian group, i can assure you, i do not. I belong to no side, so I ask you not to catagrize me.
(I am independant in both my voting and my views- in politic i go all ways.)



i am sorry if you see me, or others like me, the type of people who wish to surrender our values or what not, but you are sadly mistaken on this (at least about me). I do not think that finding common ground with your 'enemies' as a bad thing, or surrendering yourself to some type of treaty where your thoughts no longer exist. To me it is being an adult and looking past the pettiness of a name, and seeking to learn from one another and get things done by working together, rather than fight. I do not understand why peace would be such a bad thing. I am by now means saying to step down from your beliefs, but to try and comprimise and see things from anothers perceptive and try to come to understanding that wil allow for more to happen for the greater good of the people, instead of the greater good of the party.

This is how i see it (using a metaphor)

Goths and Chavs are different, and it is pretty much well known that the two sides conflict. But if there is a house to be built, should the two sides fight on how to build it, rather than trying to put away differences and work with the other to create something that can help others?

May not have been the reatest example that thre it was that is how i see things. Granted, i know that peace will never happen, but i see not why people cannot try to get along better with people who are different for them. I know if more had an open and accepting mentality of other people's views, Goths would not have to put up with half the shit we have to put up with.

MF - I hope you don't mind if I borrow your analogy and expand on it a little?

If I say to someone "I'm a goth", that actually tells them very little about who I am, because how I feel about the designation is very different than what the next person does. If I say, "that guy's a chav", well hell, that could mean just about anything, depending on whether or not you've ever met someone like that.

If I say to someone, "I'm a Pagan Witch", that too tells them very little, because it's just way too vague. Labels are imprecise and in the end, only serve to divide people.

EDIT: And here's where I remember that the thread isn't about labels at all, but whether or not one agrees with the guy in the video. Please pardon the tangent.

Yes, thank you for expanding on it, Luna, you said it much better than I could.