hear, hear

That is simply not true Maph and you are intelligent enough to know better. One side has chosen to pander and the other has chosen to promote freedom for all. Racism among individuals exists and I have witnessed it. Suggesting that Republicans embrace racism is wrong.

How so? Examples please.

No, they would not have, and I believe that Obama never would have been nominated if he weren't black. Certainly a nomination in part based on race is better than overt racism, so I stand corrected on that point. However, statism versus not anarchism, but limited government subordinated to the protection of individual rights, including the rights to one's own income and the protection of property and contract rights, is always an important issue, and I see no meaningful difference between Old and New Lefts on that issue. So while the New one may be tolerant, rather than racist, it still means to enslave us through statist socialism, whether it admits to it or not.

kill them on sight. Nasty things.

That's not to say I don't appreciate your efforts to educate me.

There are brown recluses in my part of Florida, but fortunately I haven't seen any ... yet.

I learned something, Mike. Thanks.

there are nuances, however, ultimately it takes power to force everyone into the same system of worker allocation as opposed to free exchange. You must secure 100% agreement in order for it to work. I take the point regarding Marcuse's disdain for offering a hand up without work attached to it.

"For Marcuse, the welfare state is
a state of unfreedom because its total administration is systematic restriction of (a) unethnically‘
available free time; (b) the quantity and quality of goods and services
technically‘ available for vital individual needs; (c) the intelligence (conscious and unconscious) capable of comprehending and realizing the possibilities of self-determination.
Without delving too
deeply into Marcuse‘s terminology, the important take
away is that while the welfare state can raise the standard of living, it can only do so through technical administrative means that persist the individual‘s alienation from work and others
For the dialectical thinker, however, there remains a kernel of liberation within this system." "Beyond the Third Way: Marcuse and The Dialectics of Welfare", Reese Faust, paper by Jackson Faust, http://www.academia.edu/6921396/Beyond_t...

Interesting info Mike. However, I will comment on one thing: spiders. I'm right there with you except if they are: black widows, freaking brown recluses and camel spiders. If I see one, in my house, near my house, they are killed immediately. Just my .02

I see your point, but my larger point is that both lefts offer statist poison, and I've got better things to do than study their doctrinal differences. In other words, I'm going to remain ignorant about fine distinctions in order to spend my time fighting the larger evil of which they are both a part.

Your worst mistake is claiming that the "New Left" was in favor of "welfare." The New Left was _opposed_ to welfare identifying it as a sop thrown by the ruling class to buy off the inevitable revolution. Some on the New Left (the Progressive Labor Party) also opposed the Black Panthers because that organization was based on race which divides the working class against itself, and deflects efforts away from uniting against the ruling class.

Not all insects are "bugs"'; and, as you know, spiders are not insects. Maggots look like worms but are not coelenterates, and so on... In other words, you might not like entomology but lacking knowledge, you fail to identify them correctly. In our house, we do not kill spiders because spiders eat other things that we like even less.

Again, you might not care if a maggot is a worm, but if you have a garden, it makes a difference. And in the "garden" of American political history, it is important to keep the taxonomies straight otherwise our harvest is thin.

So the New Left isn't racist which means the Right must be? Strange logic. The shift was a clear political strategy to get votes and not a shift in their beliefs.

Thanks for the links but I probably won't read them. I have no stomach for entomology.

Nominally, the Old Left and New Left had the _same_ goal, socialism. However, the New Left took on the problem of _means_; and in that they arguably deviated from the _goals_. (That is a logical consequence: the means determine the ends.) The definition of the New Left begins with The Port Huron Statement - here from HNet, the history archive, courtesy of Sen. Tom Hayden: http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/h... Two elements stand out: participatory democracy; and the university as the vanguard of change.

Participatory democracy recognizes the fact that decisions are made by those who show up. The Old Left, labor, the Democratic Party, and just about all organizations are hierarchical. The Old Left was dedicated to "centralized democracy" by a leading cadre. That route eventually became the mode of SDS when it reached its zenith (or nadir) at the Flint War Council of December 1969. Participatory democracy was abandoned.

BTW: As far as I know, the Open Town Meeting is still how things are done in Massachusetts. Perhaps someone can comment.

That leaves the university. And here we are today.

I don't say he was, but the left was out to get him from the Alger Hiss case, and they did.

Since you apparently did not read the article, I'll repeat a relevant section of it:

In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968.In the 1966 campaign, as related in my new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority,” out July 8, Nixon blasted Dixiecrats “seeking to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

Nixon called out segregationist candidates in ’66 and called on LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy to join him in repudiating them. None did. Hubert, an arm around Lester Maddox, called him a “good Democrat.” And so were they all — good Democrats.

While Adlai chose Sparkman, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, the first governor south of the Mason Dixon Line to enact an open-housing law.

In Nixon’s presidency, the civil rights enforcement budget rose 800 percent. Record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office. An Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created. SBA loans to minorities soared 1,000 percent. Aid to black colleges doubled.

Nixon won the South not because he agreed with them on civil rights — he never did — but because he shared the patriotic values of the South and its antipathy to liberal hypocrisy.

When Johnson left office, 10 percent of Southern schools were desegregated. When Nixon left, the figure was 70 percent.

Richard Nixon desegregated the Southern schools, something you won’t learn in today’s public schools.

For history is a pack of lies agreed upon.

Please tell me exactly how Nixon's actions in the 50s, 60s and 70s, anathema to the southern racists that dominated the Democratic party in the south, somehow were transmuted into an appeal to racists that allowed him to put the South in the Republican column. I think Buchanan's analysis is much closer to the truth than the popular NY Times canard you cite.

Watergate ruined Nixon. Party politics are always a constant; and during his administration, the Democrats were opponents. However, Nixon met with Mao Zedong to open new relations with China. Henry Kissinger led that effort ahead of the actual meeting. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order. Painting Richard Nixon as a principled advocate of capitalism - or of anything - is to misunderstand him.

The differences between the New and Old Left are as substantial as the differences between the "New" and "Old" Nixons. The "New Left" was clever rebranding, but there was not a dime's worth of difference between it and its predecessor. They were, and are, both statist to the core. The Old Left was overtly racist. The New Left's welfare state may not have been, but it locked millions of blacks into a never ending cycle of poverty and social pathologies.

The New Left formed because the Old Left wasn't moving fast enough for them. Both had similar goals. Compare FDR's record with Obama's. Other than WW2, they aren't that much different. Where they are different, it is because Obama is more willing to go beyond the constitutional limits of the presidency. The major way that FDR went beyond his constitutional authority was in trying to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. Obama has no limits.