Quote:

You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.

For example:

They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace.

The basic premise - federal bureaucracy is answerable to no one - is a large claim, and not really true. Bureaucracy by it's definition is answerable up the chain, and ultimately the folk at top are as well. It's slow and insulated, but it is accountable.

As for pay benefits, are you comparing apples and oranges? When you say "general populace", it doesn't sound like you're comparing the same benefits for the same type of jobs. Considering that we're in the middle of a massive recession, I suspect the comparison is even less balanced, given the level of unemployment.


They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential.

Wikipedia says Imperial Presidency goes back to the '60s and Nixon, with another big push by Reagan. That's not exactly overnight, and those aren't generally seen as folk on your list.

Congress is many things, but not inconsequential.


They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases.

The flight of capitalists based on cheap manufacture and labor isn't by folk on your list, either.


They permitted the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected.

I'd argue that the people who paid the illegal aliens bear the brunt of the blame here. Statistics says that's driven by the demand for cheap labor for agriculture. In any event, the people who support the idea that workers having some level of rights aren't generally Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement.


They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn.

Clearly a hotbutton issue. The Jane Does in Roe vs. Wade now say they were reluctant and blame their lawyers. But I doubt the majority of abortion supporters were socialists. While Margaret Sanger was a socialist, and a believer in eugenics and racial superiority as well. But it's an unsupported leap to claim that of everyone who believed that abortion was a reproductive rights issue has the same set of values.

You claim a lot, but rely on the reader to agree with you, assuming they also lump everyone other than them as having the same set of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world ideology driving them.

That's just not the case. The argument is an emotional one, not a logical one.


"We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation."

Why were these people "revered"? Most of what people believe about Washington is myth (although stripped of the myth, he's still pretty awesome). Jefferson was a brilliant thinker, but very much a flawed man. Lincoln is often admired because he "freed the slaves", but that's simply not true, and distorts what the American Civil War was about in the first place.

From the historical documents I've seen, I wouldn't agree. We've never been the sort of homogeneous group that school history texts seem to present us as. And history has never been quite as squeaky clean as we're often led to believe.


"But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America."

I heard an story a while back on NPR, where people talked about this sort of thing. Invariably, they would cite the time when they were growing up. What was interesting is they they would talk to someone who was an adult at that time, who quickly debunked this idea that "things were so much better". They kept pushing back the the prior decade, and that before, but never did find such a time.

So - in my view - you paint with a wide brush of generalizations and rely on appealing to your reader's sense of nostalgia and shared moral outrage.

An it worries me, because in the process of simplifying the problem to a Marxist conspiracy of some sort, it overlooks assumptions, such as the existence of that mythical better time. It also feel it encourages a "tribe" mentality, which seems to be hardwired into us. It seems very easy to put someone in the "not our tribe" category.

We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded."

The sad thing is, that's not necessarily true. Good people suffer, evil people live out lives of luxury. People take credit for the work of others, and sometimes people get away with murder.

I appreciate people standing up for what they believe is right. But having someone disagree with you doesn't make them a Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive.







I began a rebuttal to your points, but realized that it would be futile, and a waste of time. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.
I appreciate your reading the article and taking the time to comment.



Regards,


Bob

Dyslectics Untie!


https://90dbband.bandcamp.com/

https://soundcloud.com/90-db

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm_3mpivKYV7T7XFJmXL-GA