Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Noam Chomsky Is the Subject of Relentless Attacks by Corporate Media and Establishment [View all]Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)28. That's the problem with conflating a political party with philosophy. The republican party was the
liberal party that actually instituted real progress for almost half a century before Big Money authoritarians took it over. For the overwhelming majority of its history the Democratic party has been the party that unflinchingly defended the status quo. Both of our Roosevelt Presidents were traitors to their parties and both enjoyed great popularity from those betrayals.
Political parties have no allegiance or purpose beyond gaining political power. The Democratic Party is no more liberal than the republican party is conservative, they are merely facades hiding the real powers behind each of them. Gore Vidal, IMO, put it best when he stated that,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties"
The only difference that matters, and I think that if one simply spends some time here it becomes apparent, is the difference between the authoritarians and the egalitarians. If one truly believes in equality, the inevitable conclusion is that we must accept and make allowances for the entire range of diversity and therefore become truly egalitarian. If one cannot make take that step and insists that some things are just too different to be acceptable, than you are, to at least some degree, an authoritarian and willing to suppress some in order to accommodate the prejudices of the current majority. In essence it boils down to either; "I would like to relieve your burden, as long is it doesn't inconvenience me to much." or, "we really are all equal and I am willing to sacrifice in order for you to achieve yours."
Unfortunately, far too many of us fall into the former.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why Noam Chomsky Is the Subject of Relentless Attacks by Corporate Media and Establishment [View all]
Fantastic Anarchist
Mar 2013
OP
Lovely defense of Chomsky and good to hear that Greenwald is working on a new book...
Luminous Animal
Mar 2013
#1
DU and the Democratic Party have plenty of conservatives. They call themselves Democrats
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#6
That's the problem with conflating a political party with philosophy. The republican party was the
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#28
YVW as well, and you can. Select the OP, click on the reply you wish to bookmark, then bookmark as
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#47
I can kind of sort of see people attacking Chomsky here on DU (and have) ...
Fantastic Anarchist
Mar 2013
#7
It is almost impossible to be "unbiased". Especially history, which IMO is heavily biased one way
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#30
I believe that we all have different levels of denial we use to maintain our sanity.
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#31
It's Alternet's headline. The original from The Guardian is titled, "How Noam Chomsky is Discussed"
Luminous Animal
Mar 2013
#14
You are confusing the Watergate break in with Ellsberg shrink's attempted
Luminous Animal
Mar 2013
#25
Are you referring to this part. "Nixon White House officials sought to steal the files from Daniel
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#33
I am confused as to why you are discussing the Watergate breakin. Did Greenwald mention Watergate?nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#40
No problem. We are all friends here. Well most of us. Well a couple of us.
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#42