#seymour lipset | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yoursocialsciencesensei · 1 year

Text

Democratization in the Arab World

Economic improvements can help consolidate democracy. Multiple studies show that democracy can be introduced at any level of economic development, but that higher levels of development ensure that democracy will endure. The reasons, though, are disputed. Even so, it is apparent that economic improvement and democratization sometimes go hand-in-hand. Transitions in the Arab world could be especially fragile and could be more vulnerable to economic strains than many past cases. The potential impact of economic factors must be considered in conjunction with other dynamics.

In 1998, Kamrava argued that democratic governance in the Middle East is hard to attain because the necessary social and cultural dynamics do not exist at the time.Yet since then, several events have occurred and many circumstances have been transformed, gradually shaping a picture of the region as open to reform and democratic change. The momentum in Tunisia set off uprisings across the Middle East that became known as the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring brought optimism about the prospect of democratization in the region.

However, transition toward democracy was often violent, prompting concerns about the price of freedom. While Egypt and Tunisia underwent smooth and relatively peaceful transition in ousting autocratic regimes, both Libya and Syria were devastated by violent confrontations.

One category of theories holds that the Arab world lacks the cultural prerequisites for democracy, such as affinity for participatory government and individual rights. Some argue that either Islam or the tribal origins of Arab society has fostered a culture of submission to authority.

Another group of theories looks at what is unique about the location of the Arab world. The presence of oil in the region is one of the most prevalent explanations: Oil revenues accrue to the state, enabling it to reinforce authoritarianism by distributing patronage, buying off potential opponents, and building a coercive apparatus.

A third set of theories focuses on the efforts of foreign powers, particularly the United States, to maintain regional stability and protect Israel. Finally, Arab regimes have become adept at staving off pressure for change, for example, by stoking secularist and Islamist fears of each other coming to power.

Regardless of the best explanation or combination of explanations, it is clear that authoritarianism has proven resilient in the Arab world. The Arab Spring broke down the illusion of regime invulnerability. But the confluence of conditions and authoritarian strategies that blocked political change in the past can be expected to pose challenges for democratization going forward.

References:

Lipset, Seymour M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Legitimacy. American Political Science Review 53: 69-105.

Kamrava, M. (1998). Democracy in the Balance: Culture and Society in the Middle East. Seven Bridges Press.

Miller, L. et. al. (2012). Democratization in the Arab World Prospects and Lessons from Around the Globe. RAND Corp, ISBN 978-0-8330-7207-8m https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1192.pdf

0 notes

gravitascivics · 2 years

Text

JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, XXV

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

This posting continues a report on the expectation of schools that people share as an element of the commonplace, the milieu, in curriculum development.[2] Central to this milieu in twenty-first century America is the importance these Americans ascribe to individualism which effectively sways the expectations they have of civics instruction.

Anil Ananthaswamy comments on how individualism stacks up against other concerns. This researcher writes,

There’s actually a lot of agreement on the things that are considered to be most essential such as respecting America’s political institutions and laws and believing in individualism. There’s also considerable agreement on things that are considered less essential, such as the language one speaks, or whether someone was born in the US or has European ancestry.[3]

Seymour M. Lipset provides an extensive study of this American character trait. He writes that Americans are exceptionally supportive of individualism and anti-statism. Using comparative data, he demonstrates how, compared to the other modern industrial nations, the US ranks lower in taxes in such state-sponsored programs as welfare.[4] More recent studies continue to support these claims.[5]

In short, Americans are highly suspicious of governmental efforts to solve maladies and prefer private-for-profit approaches to dealing with communal concerns. Even public schools, some would argue, should shift to private-school arrangements.[6] In turn, these biases are not isolated but are associated with many other views and concerns.

For example, Americans have a very pragmatic view of education. Some have called this pragmatism as being anti-intellectual. Americans are wary of schools attempting to introduce academic subject matter that they – the public – do not understand. This was exemplified all the way back to the nation’s reaction to Sputnik in the late 1950s and 1960s and the reforms that ensued which were unintelligible to the public in general. Those reforms enjoyed a short longevity and were mostly dismissed within a decade.[7]

Americans believe education should be purposeful, for the most part, toward practical career goals. While this has resulted in different approaches used in schools over this century, a consistent antagonism toward highly academic bias has pervaded American campuses. Robert Maranto and Jonathan Wai share an interesting overview of American education. In their abstract introducing their study, they write,

Rooted in early 20th century progressivism and scientific management, Educational Leadership theory envisions professionally run schools as “Taylorist” factories with teaching and leadership largely standardized, prioritizing compliance over cognitive ability among educators. Further, the roots of modern education theory do not see the intelligence of students as largely malleable. Hence, prioritizing intelligence is viewed as elitist.[8]

The natural rights perspective matches closely to this seemingly consistent desire of the American public. For one, it treats government as a neutral institution. This blends with the anti-statist position of most Americans. While the systems approach recognizes the necessity of some government presence, it does not advocate any particular form for that presence nor for it to be extensive.

It leaves those types of decisions to the political interplay of the American public through the expression of demands and supports, mostly voting behavior. The instructional approach it favors does address from whence existing political pressures originate, but it does so in order for the student to gather explanations of the conditions that exist without projecting political biases for policy alternatives.

The natural rights perspective, with its reliance on political systems, is a fairly straightforward construct avoiding difficult incursions into philosophic arguments of political theory. The natural rights perspective most closely meets the expectations of American parents, i.e., that it should teach their youngsters what constitutes the government structure and give them a straightforward explanation of why the government is organized the way it is.

In doing so, it definitely avoids such messaging as was associated with federalist notions of communal, cooperative, and collaborative aims or goals that government should pursue. In its stead, one finds language that describes – and to a certain extent promotes – a transactional national stage in which the various parties go about competing for political favor from either government or other private parties.

This completes this blog’s review of Americans’ expectations of their schools’ civics instruction. Still to be covered are schools’ economic base and youth culture. With that, this blog will complete its report on the commonplaces of curriculum development as seen through the “eyes” of the natural rights construct.

[Note: As regular and ongoing readers of this blog might know, this blogger takes a break every four hundred postings. He did so after 400, 800, and now will do so after 1200 postings. As of his counting, this posting is number 1198. That leaves two more postings before the next break. He anticipates the break will last, at least, two months, maybe three. He has other projects, e.g., finishing his preparation of the re-edited collection of the blog’s second hundred postings. He looks forward to the break and getting back from it to resume producing this blog’s postings.]

[1] This presentation continues with this posting. The reader is informed that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger. Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present. This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct. This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.

[2] Joseph Schwab presents his conception of the commonplaces of curriculum development – they are subject matter, students, teachers, and milieu. See William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] Anil Ananthaswamy, “American Individualism and Our Collective Crisis,” Knowable Magazine, December 1, 2020, accessed October 23, 2022, https://knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2020/american-individualism-and-our-collective-crisis.

[4] Seymour M. Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996).

[5] See for example, “How Do US Taxes Compare Internationally?,” Briefing Book, The Tax Policy Center, 2018, accessed October 23, 2022, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally AND Robert Rector, “Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations,” The Heritage Foundation, September 16, 2015, accessed October 23, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-the-united-states-and-other-nations#:~:text=As%20a%20share%20of%20GDP,5%5D%20Ibid.%2C%20p..

[6] For example, see “Top Benefits of Private School vs. Public School,” Hotchkiss (n.d.), accessed October 23, 2022, https://www.hotchkiss.org/top-benefits-of-private-school.

[7] For a short, but interesting, history, see Dave Roos, “How the Cold War Space Race Led to US Students Doing Tons of Homework,” History [Channel], August 13, 2019, accessed October 23, 2022, https://www.history.com/news/homework-cold-war-sputnik#:~:text=The%20response%20from%20the%20U.S.,science%2C%20mathematics%20and%20foreign%20languages.

[8] Robert Maranto and Jonathan Wai, “Why Intelligence Is Missing from American Education Policy and Practice, and What Can Be Done about It,” Journal of Intelligence, 8, 1 (March 2020), accessed October 23, 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151121/. “Taylorist” refers to the work of Frederick Taylor on how production facilities, such as factories, should be run. Central to his view was the incorporation of mechanical and engineering principles to the management of labor and other production elements.

#curricular development #school milieu #school expectations #intelligence #privatisation #practical education expectations #civics education #social studies

0 notes

lolonolo-com · 2 years

Text

Siyaset Sosyolojisi Vize Deneme Sınavı -1

Siyaset Sosyolojisi Vize Deneme Sınavı -1 Auzef Siyaset Bilimi Ve Kamu Yönetimi Siyaset Sosyolojisi Vize Deneme Sınavı -1 Aşağıdakilerden hangisi siyaset sosyolojisinin bağımsız bir disiplin olarak gelişmesinde etkili olan klasik eserlerden biridir? a) Aristo, Politika b) Robert Dahl, Demokrasi ve Elestirileri c) Seymour Martin Lipset, Siyasal İnsan d) Max Weber, Ekonomi ve Toplum e) Platon,…

View On WordPress

#auzef #Siyaset Bilimi Ve Kamu Yönetimi #Siyaset Sosyolojisi

0 notes

forsetti · 4 years

Text

On The Myth of American Individualism

In light of people completely, and sometimes arrogantly, defying public health recommendations to address a pandemic in the name of “Freedom” and “American Individualism, I thought I'd repost this article I wrote in 2012.

Recently, New York Times resident hack pundit, David Brooks, wrote an article arguing that Republicans are the party that “celebrates work and inflames enterprise”. The GOP come from a long lineage of hard working, God fearing individualists that can be traced back through American history from Mitt Romney to the first Pilgrim who stood, buckled shoed, atop Plymouth Rock. Here are his opening two paragraphs: “The American colonies were first settled by Protestant dissenters. These were people who refused to submit to the established religious authorities. They sought personal relationships with God. They moved to the frontier when life got too confining. They created an American creed, built, as the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset put it, around liberty, individualism, equal opportunity, populism and laissez-faire.

This creed shaped America and evolved with the decades. Starting in the mid-20th century, there was a Southern and Western version of it, formed by ranching Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Their version drew on the traditional tenets: ordinary people are capable of greatness; individuals have the power to shape their destinies; they should be given maximum freedom to do so.”

For Brooks, America was built by hard working people who cowered from a smiting God, lived like Ted Kaczynski , didn’t accept handouts and loved the soft reach around from the Invisible Hand. From this great tradition sprouted great men who were the salt of the earth, ordinary men who lived off the fruits of the sweat of their brow. People like Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, two men who grew up in luxury, went to topflight prep schools and colleges, were able to walk into business with a long list of powerful, influential people already in their contact lists and didn’t fuck up and when they did, had other doors and opportunities open for them because of who they are and who they knew. I highly doubt that John Q. Colonialist could get a government bailout to safe his business (Romney) or have one failed business after another yet have people willing to throw money and opportunities at you over and over again (Bush).

On the claim that Republicans are the party of work and this tradition has been passed down from John Smith and Patrick Henry to Laura Ingalls Wilder and Belle Starr, I call “Bullshit!” This country was discovered, settled, expanded, progressed and rose to the world’s greatest economic power because of the community, not the individual. This love affair and worship of individualism in America is not based on its history or facts. It is a complete myth. A myth that has become a fundamental underlying principle of today’s Republican Party. A myth, that Jim Jones-like devotion to has resulted in horrible, often progress stifling, policies. It is an even more deeply rooted myth in conservative lore than Ronald Reagan being a tax cutting, small government, hard line hawk.

The first wave of immigrants that came to America came for economic, not religious reasons and they didn’t migrate to our shores to frolic in the Fountain of Laissez-Faire. They were employees, mostly indentured servants, of major trading companies who sent them here to harvest resources like timber and furs. They were “company men”, not individuals who were looking to forge a new life by braving the elements or testing their mettle. The manner in which they worked and lived was communal.

The next wave of people coming to America was the religious immigrants. For Brooks, this meant the hardworking, God fearing Protestants who sired America’s work ethic, loved the eight pound, six ounce baby Jesus and who planted the love and respect of individualism into the country’s psyche where it grew and flourished for three hundred plus years and can now be seen in the standard bearers for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, “There goes another wonderful theory about to be brutally murdered by a gang of facts.” (author unknown).

There certainly were groups of very devoutly religious people who came to America during this time. However, what Brooks conveniently omits are the multitude of the other groups that also made their way across the Atlantic to avoid the religious persecutions and heavy handed dogma in Europe. Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, etc., left Europe for the New World because of the religious environment in Europe. Being part of the religious wave didn’t mean you were religious, it meant you left because of religion. There were just as many, if not more, non-religious, non-fundamentalist immigrants to America during this period than the “Forebears of Freedom and Republican/American Greatness” as Brooks would have it. This group played as much a role in America’s formation as a country and culture, if not more, than the Puritans or Quakers. Some of the non-religious people who played a bit part in the formation of America include: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith…

The fundamentally religious in early American history was not the dominant group and it was not individualists. They in fact were the opposite. They were communal socialists. In order to afford ship passage to America they often pooled their money together to ensure they could travel as a group. They formed settlements where they helped build each other’s homes, businesses and defenses. They had community storages and would mete out food and other resources as necessary. They didn’t cut off someone who was sick. Instead they would get together and, as a group, figure out the best way to address this or any other problem. What they didn’t do is as they were ascending the gangplank of the Mayflower wave to each other and say “Good luck! Maybe I’ll see you around.” They stayed together, worked together and helped each other. They didn’t abandon the sick and weak or withhold food or shelter. If you want to see the modern day version and descendants of the early religious settlers to America, visit the Amish community in Ontario Ohio or Lancaster Pennsylvania. The Amish, Mennonites and similar groups have been the ones to continue the traditions of the early settlers. One word that is never used in describing these groups or their members is ‘individualism’.

Not to mention that there were a lot of other settlers in the early America who were not the Protestant, white New Englanders yet had just as much impact on society and culture then and now. The Spain heavily influenced Florida, California and the American Southwest. France’s influence was felt all along the Mississippi River and Great Lakes areas. To ignore or deny these groups’ impact on American culture in favor of a tiny sliver of white, New England Protestants, is intellectually dishonest. Brooks takes a sliver of early America, ascribes general characteristics to it that were not true and then claims these traits are what made this country great.

Let’s fast forward a dozen score years or so to the early 1800’s and visit another group of people touted as the champions of The American Spirit of Individualism-The Pioneers. You know the salt of the earth, lovers of capitalism and all things holy, the people who settled the West and spread the seeds of rugged individualism like they were John Holmes at Burning Man. According to people like Brooks, the Pioneers were the hardworking, Bible toting, individualist progeny of John Smith, William Bradford and Adam Smith. Again I call “Bullshit!” Hardworking? Absolutely. It was pretty difficult to not have to work hard to survive during this time unless you were filthy rich. The technology at the time was better than it was in colonial times but it still wasn’t good enough to diminish the day-to-day demands of life in the 1800’s. Individualists? Hell no! I don’t even know where this idea came from. Even the most cursory look at this era shows quite the contrary.

Remember the stories and pictures of the Pioneers moving across the Great Plains along the Oregon Trail? Did they make this trek one wagon at a time, as individuals? No. There is a reason they were called wagon trains because they moved as groups. When they arrived at their intended destinations did they head off in different directions and go all Jeremiah Johnson? No. They either joined settlements already in progress or started their own, as a group. They moved as a group, built communities as a group, defended their properties and families as a group… I come from Pioneer stock. My genealogy tree has a branch that goes back directly to Brigham Young (of course with 56 kids from 16 of his 55 wives, you can’t swing a dead cat along the Wasatch Range of Utah without hitting someone who is related to Brigham). Every single aspect of Mormon history, from moving to and building up Nauvoo Illinois, to crossing the prairie, to Brigham leading the faithful into the Salt Lake Valley through Emigration Canyon and pronouncing “This is the place”, to building Salt Lake City was a group, not an individual activity. It was so communal and such a collective effort that Marx and Engels would have been “Whoa, lighten up a bit, let a brother get some alone time.”

One argument against my take is-“These groups had to band together for pragmatic reasons. There were extenuating circumstances and variables that forced them to operate as a group in order to survive.” My response to this critique is-“Yeah. Your point being what?” Either working together, spreading out risks and rewards works and yields positive results or it doesn’t. What the reasons are for doing so are irrelevant. It doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what the reasons are for opting for the group versus the individual approach. I fail to see how changing the reasons either changes the efficacy or the results. Another way of looking at it is to ask the question, “Do you think they could have achieved the same results via the individualism route?” There doesn’t seem to be any historical evidence to support that they could. I’m skeptical that the Pioneers didn’t know how to deal with the big issues they faced and followed the community approach to problem solving out of ignorance, stupidity or tradition. If you think they could have achieved the same or better results by acting as individuals, I would need to see some evidentiary support to back up this position.

The next defense of individualism is along the lines-“That was then, this in now. The world has changed so the need for the community approach has diminished in importance and has been replaced with the superior, individualism approach.” There are two main problems with this argument. First, Brooks and the defenders of individualism are not saying, “The community approach WAS the driving force behind early American exceptionalism but now it is the individual.” The view they hold to be innately true is that it WAS individualism that made America great. Individualism brought to this country by God fearing, religious freedom seeking, hardworking Europeans, passed down through the generations or absorbed by some sort of osmosis where the trait, like blond hair to Scandinavians, is dominant in conservatives. Brooks and company might admit that the community approach played a role, just not THE role in making America great. It was individualism that built that. Uh......., no.

Second, the “but the circumstances have changed and the individual plays a fundamentally more important rule” argument is also bullshit. Certainly the nature of the problems have changed. We don’t typically worry about packs of wolves, marauding Indians, small pox, the plague, dysentery, being snowed in an unable to get food for weeks in today’s society. We live in a much more technologically advanced world where these types of problems have adequately been addressed and dealt with. When it comes to many of the problems and situations that faced the early settlers, we will never face them. Why? Because are Founders and those that came after them, as communities, found solutions to those problems. But, just because those problems either don’t exist or are rare does not mean that we currently are sans problems. With the advancement of technologies, the world has expanded where people are not limited to living in a small area of the world most of their lives, where commerce and ideas travel around the world at an unbelievable speed. We’ve gone from regional to a world economy. While the small, regional problems of the past have been handled, there are larger often global problems that need our attention. I don’t see how, if individualism couldn’t properly deal with the small, regional problems, it can possibly take care of larger ones. If anything, the larger problems need a larger community.

Imagine a small town in Nebraska in the late 1800’s whose local bank is having a cash flow problem. The town needs the bank so they come together and as a group, deposit enough money to keep the bank going. Fast forward to September 2008 where the large banks and financial institutions in the U.S. who have branches across the country and all over the world and also have deep, financial ties to other countries’ banks. They have a serious cash flow problem. One of these banks was Bank of America. Imagine the B of A branch in Minden Nebraska, population 3000. It doesn’t matter how community minded and organized the kind citizens of Minden are, nothing they do can safe their local bank from collapse because it belongs to a much larger entity. So, in order to address the problem, the definition of community needs to expand. The financial problem was nationwide so it took the entire nation to adequately address the U.S. banking problem. The global financial problem took the global community to address and fix it. It is not that individuals have not made significant contributions but outside the arts, very few have had a big impact on the economy or culture of America. What makes America great and the advantage we have over just about every other country is our diversity. Homogeneous societies can accomplish a lot and often quickly because as a group, they think pretty much alike. Their greatest limitation is thinking outside their cultural box. America, with its wide diversity of cultures always has voices outside the box providing input. This is a major force behind our innovations and progress the past couple of hundred years.

Name a major economic event in America’s history that was the result of individualism. There might be some but the majority are ones undertaken by either groups or the government (group) for the betterment of its citizens (huge group). Louisiana Purchase, Seward’s Folly, Transcontinental Railroad, Interstate Highway System, Tennessee Valley Authority, Space Race, WWII, GI Bill, Erie Canal, St. Lawrence Seaway, Panama Canal, Hoover Dam…all were paid for by the group, built by groups and benifitted groups of the population.

Individuals who have been put on the pedestal of individualism didn’t accomplish what they did by themselves. Edison is thought to be one of America’s greatest inventors (Tesla was much better but Edison was a better marketer). Growing up, the image of Edison was him laboring long, arduous hours by himself in is laboratory. The reality is he had a very large team of some of the world’s top people working in his lab in Menlo Park and was heavily funded.

Individualism is important and certainly has played a role in America’s rise to power. But, individualism didn’t have the starring role in “Making America Great”. That role was played by a cast of thousands. Individualism was a bit player whose name wouldn’t come up in the end credits until half the audience had already left the theater.

20 notes · View notes

poli2016 · 4 years

Link

Extra credit opportunity scheduled for December 3. Must register by 11/27. As always, attend and write a short response with proof of attendance and post to our Bb 24/7 Discussion or email to me. Once you’ve completed this, you can request extra credit on the final exam in December.

Remember, share your events with me with at least a few days notice so we can have more extra credit opportunities for all my fall students! :)

1 note · View note

fluffmugger · 4 years

Text

American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from those of other nations. In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, equality before the law, individual responsibility, republicanism, representative democracy and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism." Second is the idea that the US has a unique mission to transform the world. As Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to ensure, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Third is the sense that the United States' history and mission give it a superiority over other nations.

[x]

#Just in case you ever wondered WHAT THE FUCK AMERICA #there is your answer in three neat points #BUT I'M SPECIAL AND COOL

12 notes · View notes

your-instructions-from-moscow · 7 years

Quote

Their overriding preoccupation with those institutions and behavior patterns that produced a stable society led them to minimize the necessity for radical criticism and continuing reform. … No one exhibited these tendencies more transparently than Seymour Lipset. Throughout Political Man, he detected elements of stability in the most unlikely phenomena, and he was continually able to translate the most unpromising institution or social ill into a democratic asset. Did union officials ignore the rank and file? Too much internal democracy provoked factional disputes and pointless wildcat strikes, Lipset replied. Were American voters apathetic? "It is possible," he speculated, "that nonvoting is now ... a reflection of the stability of the system, a response to the decline of major social conflicts." While a high voter turnout was "not necessarily bad," any sudden increase in the size of the electorate "probably reflects tension and serious government malfunctioning." Worse, it "introduces as voters individuals whose social attitudes are unhealthy," whose lack of education left them with "cynical ideas about democracy and political parties," whose impatience with parliamentary coalitions coupled with their authoritarian penchant for strong leaders all threatened to disrupt the normal routines of governance. Were Washington bureaucrats remote and impersonal? Perhaps, Lipset acknowledged, but they also tempered the "strains of party strife" by removing "conflicts from the political to the administrative arena." Additionally, because bureaucrats demanded "objective criteria" for settling problems, they played "major mediating roles" in society. Hence, Lipset asserted, "the pressures to extend bureaucratic norms and practices" to all areas of public life actually strengthened the "democratic consensus."

Richard H. Pells, The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age: American Intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s (1985), 144.

#seymour martin lipset #postwar america #consensus history #1950s

2 notes · View notes

allfathertoday · 5 years

Text

How to Destroy America by Texas Oathkeepers

Something I read over coffee this morning:

Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the bejeebies out of you!

We know Dick Lamm as Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington D.C., filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor [and farmer] by the name of Victor Davis Hanson talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.'

Lamm went on:

"Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

"Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricacy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, un-assimilated, under-educated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. 'E. Pluribus Unum' -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will 'Balkanize' America as surely as Kosovo.

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural country, having established multi-culturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Last, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. Unless you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate "diversity." American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book, 1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you.

NOTHING to counteract this is going to happen if you don't!

286 notes · View notes

glozirina · 6 years

Photo

Supporters of the social revolution should always remember the brilliant formulation of Seymour Martin Lipset: "Fascism is the extremism of the middle." According to him, the base of the extreme left is the working class, the base of the extreme right is the "upper strata" of society. And the fascist movements are movements of the "middle strata", their reaction to social and economic problems and crises. This circumstance must be kept in mind, faced with various anti-corruption movements and other speeches for "honest and pure capitalism." No matter how hateful the oligarchs and neoliberal "elites" are, with the "radicals of the middle", we are not on the way. -Vadim Grayevskiy https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2038484659515217&id=100000611076926

#anarchy #anarchism #anti-facism

124 notes · View notes

rickbarebow · 5 years

Text

Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the bejeebies out of you!

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

Lamm went on:

If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you.

NOTHING to counteract this is going to happen if you don't!

1 note · View note

jennahartman16 · 6 years

Video

youtube

*Contextual Leadership and Exceptionalism*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: How does this artifact define what it means to be an exceptional nation? What does it mean that you/we/they are defining it that way? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this definition?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Rihanna’s “American Oxygen” music video from 2015 as my rhetorical artifact. In this music video, Rihanna presents two different America’s: the “American Dream” and America’s reality. Through doing this she shows the past trauma and horrific events that have taken place, countered by a “new America” that is happier, more equal, and exceptional. While her video is productive for society as a whole, it overlooks much of what America has done in the past that was good and has helped our country grow in a positive way.

The music video begins with Rihanna placed in front of the American flag and clips rolling that represent what most people think of when they think of America. These symbols include the Statue of Liberty, the moon landing, soldiers, government buildings, oil, and factories. These are later replaced, or shown side by side, by tragedies and violent events that have occured within America’s history. A homeless veteran is shown sitting on the streets, clips of riots are played along with horrific police brutality beatings, as well as an African American boy shown selling drugs placed next to a clip of a prison.

American exceptionalism is generally defined as America being unique and admirable. American exceptionalism usually shows all of America’s strong points while ignoring everything else that is less positive and pretty. This idea focuses on the “American Dream” and encourages people to look at America’s past, present, and future, as something that is unique and better than the rest of the World’s. Seymour Martin Lipset explains American exceptionalism in his book “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword”, as “...a double-edged concept. As I shall elaborate, we are the worst as well as the best, depending on which quality is being addressed” (Lipset). Which is exactly what Rihanna shows within this music video.

At the beginning of the video when the patriotic symbols are shown, Rihanna represents the great qualities of America. She is singing the words, “Every breath I breathe, chasing this American Dream. We sweat for a nickel and a dime, turn it into an empire…”, which implies that if you work hard, you can do and become anything you want. A sign is then shown saying “Nation of Immigrants”, symbolizing that everyone is able to have this “American Dream” and that America is welcoming to diversity. Rihanna also sings, “Young girl, hustlin’, on the other side of the ocean. You can be anything at all in America”. This all exemplifies the “American Dream”. However, shortly after these symbols are shown, the visuals change to the shocking reality of America which is full of wars, bombs exploding, police brutality, prison, homeless veterans, and racism. Rihanna creates two different American realities and ends her video by singing, “This is the new America. We are the new America” with visuals of young and diverse children and people coming together. Signs are shown saying, “Last chance for non-violence”, “We’re all in this together” and “We owe our children a just society”. New America is shown as an exceptional nation that includes immigration reform, equality, movements against police brutality and a brighter future for everybody. Rihanna is also shown with a parachute floating on her back at the beginning when showing the examples of the “American Dream”. When the clips switch to America’s reality, Rihanna is shown being dragged down by the parachute, as if she is being held down by the hatred that America carries.

By showing the violent clips from America’s past next to the symbols of the “American Dream” and lastly the “New America”, it could be argued that this music video ignores any good that this country has done up until now. Part of making a “New America” is not only learning from the mistakes and horrors that have been made in the past but also taking the good qualities and the positive events with us to the future, which this video mostly ignores. While this is a disadvantage to this music video, it also is very productive for society as a whole because it isn’t lying or sugar coating anything that has happened. It is a push to be better for the children that will one day run this country and a call to action to America as a whole.

In summary, this artifact portrays an exceptional nation as one that is not practiced in America today. The “New America”, which is exceptional, is shown as one with equality and opportunity for all. By defining it this way, it shows the “American Dream” as something that does not exist for everybody and that is outplayed by hatred and violence. While being upfront and honest about the realities of this country is something that should not be ignored and instead used as a way to grow, it does ignore most positive events within America’s history and chips away at the patriotism of the audience.

Works Cited:

Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. W.W. Norton, 1996.

Rihanna. “American Oxygen.” Westbury Road Entertainment, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8cGLIMtvg

1 note · View note