"Liberal Hispanic activists assail Rubio, Cruz as 'traitors' to their culture."
I'm using my "liberalism" tag, but what they are saying does not deserve the word "liberalism."
The OED defines "liberalism" as "Support for or advocacy of individual rights, civil liberties, and reform tending towards individual freedom, democracy, or social equality; a political and social philosophy based on these principles... Freedom from bias, prejudice, or bigotry; open-mindedess, tolerance; (Polit.) liberal left-wing political views and policies." Only that last part, "liberal left-wing political views and policies," applies. I should just use my "left-wing ideology" tag. Avoid the confusion.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
group rights. disgusting and unamerican.
Professor, the No True Scotsman fallacy is still a fallacy.
THIS is what Liberalism became when it embraced Progressivism. Free sex turned into a sex show that makes modern kids look like neo-Victorians. Everybody is split up into their racial grievance group to constantly remind themselves of how much their lives sucking is the fault of others.
This is what liberalism gave to the world.
Chinga tu madre
It's certainly illiberal in the non-ideological sense of the word, i.e,. liberal vs. conservative. Substitute white or European for Hispanic and it sounds like David Duke.
And it's why I think many people have an unease with this generation of immigrants. I've always been a huge supporter of immigration seeing it almost a renewal of the country. I've seen a naturalization ceremony - I wish every American would go to one - and it was one of the most moving events I've seen. Aside from family events - weddings, funerals, anniversaries - it was the most moving thing I've seen. The people were ecstatic about becoming Americans. Dresses in their best clothes, big smiles on their faces.
But many of the leaders of this new generation - steeped in identity politics and leftwing views of America - sees immigration differently, assimilation differently; it's all take and no give. If you view the US as thoroughly racist and unjust, why assimilate into such a culture? Very troubling.
Perhaps add a new tag? Illiberalism or illiberal.
They are traitors to the Leftist wings of Hispanic culture, and, of course, the American culture.
Since those wings of respective cultures are rotten -- this is a good thing.
Ah, race-traitors.
I remember the old days when the only people who used such language were Nazis and Klansmen...
I agree--the word "liberal" really doesn't apply to anyone who favors racial classifications, shutting down speech, skirting the rule of law, and curtailing individual rights.
The very concept of a "race traitor" is inherently offensive. Change the race and you'll see--"the Senator is a traitor to the white race because he is not sufficiently supportive of policies important to white people."
I'm hoping this racist garbage backfires and Hispanics reject it.
Leftism is treason, systemized. It is a political organization hostile to its home culture and nation. I look forward to the day we can treat it as such.
"traitors to their culture" ? What culture is that?
"Liberal Hispanic activists" come from L.A., not penitente country.
As if there is a monolithic Hispanic culture. What we know is that Cruz is not Castro.
The odd thing is that Marx wasn't hispanic either. Yet, that old white European man gets to define what is purely Hispanic. That doesn't sound very loyal to Hispanic culture.
Maybe Cruz is more Hispanic than these activists, in being more concerned about the value of people and communities than the imposition of radical ideologies.
Underlying all this nastiness at Cruz is another factor in the "Latino" community: ethnicity.
There's no such thing as a "Latino", an "Hispanic". It's like saying there's "white people". No, there are Mexicans, Peruvians, Salvadorans, Cubans, etc. The honest truth is, they often don't like each other very much. The folks bitching about Cruz? Mexicans, & Cruz is Cuban. Cuban exiles tend to be very conservative (living under Communism will do that) & Mexicans generally lean liberal/social democratic, especially when it comes to economics if not culturally.
And they don't like each other. Not a bit. The Mexicans think the Cubans, especially the ones of pure Spanish blood, are arrogant shits. The Cubans think that the Mexicans couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. But if you want to hear really nasty racism, ask both of them what they think of Puerto Ricans. Oy gevalt!
Looks like Trump for certain, but Cruz and even Rubio won't get much of the Latino vote. Well, that's what you get when you don't support a path to citizenship. Why would Latino voters want to see their family members deported or continue living in the shadows? It's only natural that they will vote for people who will reflect their interests. Having a Latino background won't help Cruz or Rubio, they come down on the wrong side of the immigration debate.
"I should just use my "left-wing ideology" tag. Avoid the confusion." Umm, yeah. You avoid a lot of "confusion" by assuming that for Progs words are just tools. If "traitor" can be used to smear a con, use it; if applied to anyone actually aiding and abetting our enemies, giving them comfort, like some people we know, then it maliciously impugns a lefty's patriotism. Not that they care about any patria, they just don't want to lose the few dozen lib voters who do care.
This Hispanic Ted Cruz supporter agrees!
And who elected these activists as the official arbitors of all Latino-American "culture"?
"Support for or advocacy of individual rights, civil liberties, and reform tending towards individual freedom, democracy, or social equality; a political and social philosophy based on these principles... Freedom from bias, prejudice, or bigotry; open-mindedess, tolerance; (Polit.) liberal left-wing political views and policies."
It is odd that the modern Democrat party and many people who consider themselves liberals and/or progressives often seem at odds with concepts like "individual freedom", "freedom from bias", and "open-mindedess".
Normally, I would say "liberalism, that word does not mean what you think it does" but in this case, it is not you or I but the "record keepers" that are "wrong". Dictionaries have not kept up with the evolution of some words. This one for instance does not mean what they think it does "any more".
This word "liberalism" has morphed into something else entirely [from its initial meaning] and in fact is mostly a parody of what it once was. It now means to defend an ideology that demands adherence to a strict code of identity politics and social norms that stifle individual liberty and self expression unless that self expression denigrates the historic culture of western society. Liberalism defends "piss Christ" but would not dream of even creating a "piss Koran". Liberalism demands personal choice as long as those choices are the "right" choices (i.e. abortion yes, keeping a downs baby no and women have careers yes, women choose to be stay-at-home and home-school no). It has turned from a philosophy into a cult.
Good luck with that.
As others have mentioned, we need to call these people what they are: tribalists.
Didn't the Soviet Union have denunciations like that? I think they included shaming and a "traitor to the state" or race?
How are the tactics of the Democrats different than an abuser who threatens to withhold belonging to the target of the abuse if he or she doesn't do as the abuser wants? Mommy will think you are a liar! If you tell, daddy won't love you anymore! Nobody will believe you! You're worthless if you don't go along!
These are also the tactics of a cult. Where is Crack when we need him?
I would suggest most Latinos don't identify with the culture these LA based activists are selling either. Are they traitors?
Most of my Mexican family members (who still post in Spanish) post a lot about the Virgin Mary, the tragedy of abortion, Papa Francis, futbol, etc.
And, as has already been pointed out, the Cubans and the Mexicans are nothing alike. Nothing.
How quaint of Ann to quote the OED. The OED's definition of "liberalism" hasn't been accurate since the late 1800's. The editors of the OED really should get out more often.
a path to citizenship? we've already got a path to citizenship. i'm in favor of turning the immigration spigot off for awhile. that's in my interest.
Perhaps classical liberalism was consistent and especially deferred to individual dignity, but not generational liberalism which stumbles forward on unprincipled or selective positions.
Actually, these days "lliberalism" means "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellation."
Progressives insist on being called liberals because it obfuscates their identity on two levels: first, it identifies them with the virtuous aspects of liberalism (for example: actual tolerance, a respect for personal liberty, respect for the right of contract, and property rights) that they lack; second, it obscures how close progressive thinking is to totalitarianism and fascism. The idea that "liberal" is in any way associated with the contemporary political left in America is ridiculous, and no thinking person should accept such a redefinition.
Well, that's what you get when you don't support a path to citizenship.
We don't have a path to citizenship right now? Ask any non-Mexican immigrant if there is a path to citizenship. What conservatives don't support is a special Autobahn lane exclusively for those who are here illegally to speed on past those who are on the legal path to becoming citizens. This is why a naturalization ceremony is so special. It's something earned, not stolen.
We're not deporting those who are here legally, are we?
"I'm using my "liberalism" tag, but what they are saying does not deserve the word "liberalism."
And so-called radical Islamic terrorists are not really Muslims because ? ? ?
Progressives insist on being called liberals because it obfuscates their identity on two levels
My experience is that they prefer to be called progressives and not liberals. Liberalism historically has rejected the explicit identity politics that progressives embrace. Progressives thus reject the liberal label since they view it as too conservative, too much deference to the status quo.
"Dolores Huerta, an influential labor leader and civil rights activist, called Cruz and Rubio “sellouts” and “traitors”
--
Eh..when Delores"all Republicans are racis!" Huerta shows up, put on the hip waders.
If only she could reign in these "white Hispanics".
heyboomAsk said: any non-Mexican immigrant if there is a path to citizenship.
True. And though Rubio has had to "evolve" on this, he is the only one bringing that up from time to time. Telling reporters about hearing complaints from families whose members are angry about watching the "undocumented" jump the line while they wait..and wait...
I believe the OED conflated the definition of Classic Liberal with communist inspired progressive movements.
I'm hoping this racist garbage backfires and Hispanics reject it.
It won't because there is no reason for it to fail. Democrats are helped by having all of these groups, stuck on their individual islands, led by demagoguing morons who will keep them in line.
If assimilation was a goal any longer, I wouldn't be worried. But "selling out" is now bad. And culture is all relative.
Well, that's what you get when you don't support a path to citizenship. Why would Latino voters want to see their family members deported or continue living in the shadows?
Then conservatives are fools for supporting it and they should REALLY embrace mass deportations. Got it. I fully agree.
Toss them ALL out. How? Doesn't matter. Violently if need be. If the Left is convinced it can confiscate 300M guns, tossing out 30M illegals should be no problem.
Of course, those same Leftist imbeciles believe one can have a social welfare system and open borders. That takes a special level of stupid.
Didn't the Soviet Union have denunciations like that?
Mao's China is the template for modern Progressivism.
But if you want to hear really nasty racism, ask both of them what they think of Puerto Ricans. Oy gevalt!
Or yuou could ask Puerto Ricans what they think of Cubans. Especially the ones who came to PR with nothing but the clothes on their backs and became very successful.
But yeah, you are exactly right, no love lost between the three groups and lumping them all together doesn't help.
Cubans are probably going to favor the Repos. Puerto Ricans in FL will favor, less strongly, repubs. Mexicans, not so much. OTOH, the Mexicans are mostly in places like Chicago, California where the Repos won't win anyway. So who cares what they think or do.
John Henry
First, take a step back and see the North American and South American continents as viewed tactically by the Global Moneyed interests. OMG, suddenly you can see leverage still there left over from the King of Spain's Holy Roman Empire. It's only been in remission for 140 years. And Cruz wants to see it rise again by ruling from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Rubbio is more American. He just wants to be rich.
The political Left in this country appropriated the label of liberal, destroyed it, moved on to Progressive, destroyed it, went back to Liberal, destroyed it again, and now have returned to Progressive.
The irony of course being the Political Left has never been either liberal in the classic sense, or progressive.
"Professor, the No True Scotsman fallacy is still a fallacy."
How can you possibly accuse me of that? I'm doing just about exactly the opposite. I'm saying "liberalism" is a significant word and the people who are claiming it are not living up to its meaning.
"THIS is what Liberalism became when it embraced Progressivism. Free sex turned into a sex show that makes modern kids look like neo-Victorians. Everybody is split up into their racial grievance group to constantly remind themselves of how much their lives sucking is the fault of others. This is what liberalism gave to the world."
It may be what people who have used that label are supporting, but they are not true to the meaning of the word they are using. There's no fallacy in what I am saying. By the way, it's just The Washington Post using the word "liberal." I suspect they are saying that to be polite and avoiding saying "leftist." I'm saying "leftist" is the better word here, because it doesn't have a valuable, venerable meaning that I feel motivated to preserve.
Those who just hate liberals anyway (like the commenters at Instapundit) don't see any reason to preserve a nonpejorative meaning for the word.
A: A 'progressive' is a communist or socialist without the balls or integrity to say what they are.
B: Borrowing from Michael Z. Williamson, 'Call them leftists, because there's nothing liberal about them.
How can you possibly accuse me of that? I'm doing just about exactly the opposite. I'm saying "liberalism" is a significant word and the people who are claiming it are not living up to its meaning.
But the people ARE liberals. It's not conservatives referring to them as such. They, themselves, are doing so. Is modern Western liberalism PROFOUNDLY illiberal? Absolutely. Liberalism and liberals need not be synonymous. Liberalism is a good idea. Liberals are people who, quite frequently, will put personal interest over their own professed good.
Perhaps the better question is "were they EVER 'liberal'?"
Did they support free speech? It seems only when it benefitted them. How many 1960's free speech hippies turned around and gave us draconian speech laws on campus? How many reporters now seek only to shame people who don't do what they want?
The ideology here isn't the issue. It's the adherents. But it was always the adherents.
I view the argument the same as the Confederate flag fight. I know people who truly believe the "Stars and Bars" isn't racist. And I told them for years "People who felt that had YEARS to stop people from ruining their symbol and to make their case. You didn't and you lost out. To many, it's now utterly racist and that won't be undone".
Don't like what is happening to "liberalism"? There were decades when these problems started becoming apparent and "liberals" stayed silent. So, now, "liberalism" is co-opted, completely, by Progressivism.
Are you personally co-opted? I'd say no. Professor, you seem quite dedicated to free and open discourse within certain civil bounds. You seem to like the ideals of your beliefs (liberalism, feminism, etc) and seem to be upset that they are being bastardized.
But I come here because you are one of the few left-leaning people I can say that about.
By the way, it's just The Washington Post using the word "liberal." I suspect they are saying that to be polite and avoiding saying "leftist." I'm saying "leftist" is the better word here, because it doesn't have a valuable, venerable meaning that I feel motivated to preserve.
I wish you well in your efforts. I hope people like you can win out over the Maoists who run the show too frequently on the Left. I fear the horse is out of the barn and isn't going back in, but I can be surprised.
Much as modern conservatives had to deal with the hardcore religious fundamentalists (at this day, honestly, how much of a force does anybody think the Religious Right is? Their support is nice but it's hardly going to carry the day) and win the fight over them, much as it has been ignored for years, liberals have to slay progressivism. History, though, gives little hope.
Amanda: "Well, that's what you get when you don't support a path to citizenship."
Next up, thieves being placed on a path to "ownership of stuff they stole", after coming forward to declare and register their "new" stuff.
Woodrow Wilson was a self-described "progressive"; he thought Birth of a Nation, a movie about the development of racial identity was quite a movie. And if you took the negative of that movie and reversed it so white was black and black was white it would still be a movie "progressives" support. Only the names have been changed from black to white to protect the "progressive" theme - The state is my shepherd; I shall not want green pastures as long as you think the state can solve it all. And Wilson at the start of the 20C is the bookend to Obama at the end as the 20C rides off into the sunset.
"But the people ARE liberals."
The word I'm defending is "liberalism." I don't think what they are doing deserves that tag, because it is the opposite of liberalism.
I know I'm being a little bit like the people who want to say "Democrat Party" and not "Democratic Party."
I am a liberal. These "activists" are not liberals.
Their goal is to turn the USA into Mexico. A country full of corruption and evil where only the wealthy have a good life. That is what Obama has been working on with his fundamental transformation of this country as well.
People fled Mexico because it is a shit hole. Letting all of the Mexicans in and giving them citizenship doesn't do much in the long run as it just makes us more like Mexico. But that brings us around again to the Progressives true goal.
The word I'm defending is "liberalism." I don't think what they are doing deserves that tag, because it is the opposite of liberalism.
I don't disagree. Conservatives are classical liberals these days. If the individual isn't paramount, then it's a shade of fascism and not classical liberalism, the greatest system of governance and society ever created.
But they are the ones championing the brand and not a lot of people are calling them on their illiberalism.
I know I'm being a little bit like the people who want to say "Democrat Party" and not "Democratic Party."
Nah. You're defending something that you care about. You've probably been "liberal" as long as you can remember and, I assume, it is somewhat painful to see what it has morphed into over the last 50 years.
But you are a rather lone voice in the wilderness. Your criticisms tend to lead to recriminations that you're "right wing" (as a conservative, I can say --- you're "conservative" on a comparative scale to Madison and not to where I live.
Why are so few Progressives willing to call out BLM for their obsession with a discredited narrative and actions that seem to do little more than enhance racial grievances? Why don't they call out the attack on due process that a lot of schools are doing now (because, God knows, that won't end up ending badly)? Why don't they punish the students who shout down speakers they don't like?
Think Trump is an idiot and a bigot? Then call him out. Fine. But don't ignore the rampant problems in your own community.
One of my church's biggest things for the last year is for us to clean up our own house. Nobody will listen, nobody will join you, nobody will RESPECT you if you proclaim certain things to be true and good and then do the exact opposite. Live your ideals.
Colleges could live up to their lofty beliefs if they want to. I just don't think that they want to. They like the Maoist strain in students because it is currently not goring them. Which is why I've become a "defund all of them" guy now. I don't think it can be fixed and any attempt to do so will lead to some of the more marginal faculty poisoning the well so badly that it is useless anyway.
Just as Blacks can't be Authentic Blacks if they are conservative or vote Republican, Latins can't be Authentic Latins if they are conservative or vote Republican. No one buys that crap except leftists.
One thing the leftist conveniently overlook to the extent every Latin American country is a shithole it is due to the extent they embrace Progressive governance.
Isn't this discussion on the "appropriation" of liberal a few decades late?
What seems to be a more recent development is the "liberal" hijacking of language to control the discussion of issues. I suppose it started with liberal..but it seems to me like all these new terms and redefining of old terms has gone from a creep to a gallop.
If you want to be a Cuban, go to Cuba. We don't need extra culture in America.
Get on a boat and take your hyphenated-ass back.
"I'm saying "leftist" is the better word here, because it doesn't have a valuable, venerable meaning that I feel motivated to preserve."
I feel the same way about "marriage."
I just remembered where I had seen Cruz's unique Spanish face before. It is identical to the pic of Mariano G Vallejo on the cover of a reprint of his "Report of a Visit To Fort Ross and Bodega Bay In April 1833."
He was the Spanish King's guy in charge of keeping Spain's claims to California safe from the Russian Czar's new claims asserted at their Fort Russe (Ross) settlement in upper Sonoma Valley. It is on high ground a few miles along the coast from Bodega Bay where Hitchcock's The Birds was filmed.
Vallejo and Cruz look like cousins.
If you ever have the opportunity try the book Del buen salvaje al buen revolucionario , Carlos Rangel,Or El Manual del Perfecto Idiota. Vargas Llosa JR et al. They explain the hate.-love relationship between Latin americans and the USA.It is the same for the real Hispanics,losing the war for Cuba , Puerto Rico and the Philippines did that.
They started before the USA. By the beginning of the XX century Argentina was the USA peer and suddenly those uneducated, materialist, Protestant , merchants ( more or less, Miranda´s word, he took part in the 3 Revolution; American, Iberoamerican and French) were at the top of the World
Nixon got it wrong, American colonialism was real for Centro America and Panama. Mexico lost half of their territory in wars with America. And the support for dictators ( Foster Dulles about one of them "he is a SOB but it is our SOB).
But in the end , Latin America had no one to blame but itself. The rest of Latin America never saw troops and for sure the troops in Haiti or even DR were a blessing( Guatemala was another history).
Nobody forced their governments to follow the socialist path.And most of the time, they got support from the USA despite that.
--
The Latin American elites are deeply conservative , abortion is illegal or restricted in most countries. Divorce was illegal in many countries until the 70´s. The exception being Venezuela , under French influence since 1811. But at the same time they hate Protestants and have nothing but comptemt for the USA
The middle class is social- democrats but they love American culture but they share the elites rejection of family values. Their main complaint: American are on their own at 18 YO and parents dont care
The poor baptize their children with names likes Yonaycre ( Jordan Nike Air), Iusnavi ( US Navy, in Cuba no less). Brayan ( Brian) or Kennedy, Nixon( a very popular name in Venezuela despite being received with stones and eggs during his visit) or the likes or Dick William Colina or Mazerosky or Wyatt. And they are becoming Evagelices in droves
If they were smart, they would have declared
"But they're Cuban!"
That would've meant something to Mexicans
venerable meaning that I feel motivated to preserve."
I feel the same way about "marriage."
Men, women, and babies too.
Viva la raza (excluding Cubans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans, Blacks, Indians, gueros, and Republicans)!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा