Log In | Register
The new and improved Democratic Party version seems to be that "Diversity is Unity." Orwell called this "doublethink" and he claimed that it was a condition endemic to the totalitarian mind. It meant the ability "to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory" and "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies." For example, a liberal socialist political platform usually involves "liberating" us from our attachments to property, families and nation in the name of "freedom." When the State chooses for us, however, the result is slavery. Doublethink in Mr. Obama's case ("Diversity is Unity!") gives him the luxury of defending not only the divisive and intolerant Reverend Wright and his party's divisive policies over the years, but it also allows him to be seen as the savior who will finally make America whole.
Since it is difficult to recall a time when national unity was high on the list of Democratic Party priorities, the coming months should be a rather curious time for many. For instance, when Obama runs in the general election, will his supporters cover their old "Celebrate Difference" bumper stickers with a new "Celebrate Unity" sticker? Will the old "rainbow" flag be replaced by a new flag sporting a picture of a melting pot? Doublethink, however, can help with these exasperating decisions: just display both.
Doublethink and the Liberal Mind. By Ed Kaitz. April 05, 2008
Article Source: American Thinker- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (1)
In a devastating critique of Hillary Clinton's proposals for the American family, the eminent historian Christopher Lasch wrote in the October, 1992 issue of Harper's Magazine,
"her writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, the state that sets them free."
Hillary later expertly spun this philosophy in a more palatable form as "it takes a village to raise a child." Lasch quotes from several of Hillary's essays in which she challenges, according to Lasch, the traditional view that "parents are competent to raise their children and that the burden of proof lies with those who argue otherwise." That is, according to Hillary, the burden of proof is on the parents to prove their competence, not the state to prove theirs.
In Hillary's words, traditional conventions regarding parental competence simply amount to "romanticism about the family" and "cherished, albeit fantasized, family values." After quoting these and a number of Hillary's other observations on the family, Lasch draws a rather sobering conclusion:
The best defense against the state is the informal authority exercised by the family, the neighborhood, the church, the labor union, and all of those other intermediate institutions that make it possible for communities to educate, discipline, and take care of themselves without calling in the state. The growth of the welfare state weakens those institutions, and reformers then cite the resulting disarray in order to justify another dose of the same medicine. Far from encouraging individual autonomy, however, the state turns citizens into clients.
- 1 vote
#1 - Sat Apr 5, 2008 4:33 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
