The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So "Republicans" are "the extreme right"?

Yes they are. This isn't really all that controversial, is it? This political compass from the 2008 election may be helpful:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 

How progressive of you.

I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form. Try another one.

[Menace Wilson]

I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form. Try another one.

Right, I was being sarcastic.  To lump an entire abstract group together as "extreme" is the opposite of progressive thought.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form. Try another one.

Right, I was being sarcastic.  To lump an entire abstract group together as "extreme" is the opposite of progressive thought.

Actually progressivism is just about social, political, and economic reform, following in the tradition of classical liberalism. It doesn't have much or anything to do with either lumping groups or being against lumping groups.

I am referring to the Republican party and advocates of it. That the Republican party stands on the extreme right and has for years is uncontroversial.  If you're an advocate for the Republican party and not on the extreme right, then I would suggest finding another party, since the Republicans would not be the ones to represent your interests.

[Menace Wilson]

Progressive means favoring progress.  To say that anyone who identifies as a Republican is an extremist (racist and homophobic) is a ridiculous generalization...the sort of generalization that hinders rather than helps progress.

Clearly we can go in circles about this.  What's the point.

You are a Beach Boys fan, and so am I.  That's all that matters.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Progressive means favoring progress.

I'm sorry, but no. Progressivism has a long history and it does not mean "favoring progress" despite the similarity in name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

To say that anyone who identifies as a Republican is an extremist (racist and homophobic) is a ridiculous generalization...the sort of generalization that hinders rather than helps progress.

Which is why I didn't say that. First, I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia. Where one sits on the political spectrum has often little to do with social views like those. It has mostly to do with one's economic stance and the kind of authority one believes should be accorded to a government (although if one is a strict authoritarian and a racist and a homophobe, then we run into some very serious problems). Furthermore, I also never said that "anyone who identifies as a Republican is an extremist". What I said was that if you identify as a Republican and are not a right-wing extremist (in the actual sense, not in the sense where right-wing extremism means racist and homophobic) then you should look for another party. Incidentally, the very fact that there is a political party means that we have to talk about it in generalizing terms, otherwise there is no point to having political parties. In other words, what would be the point of having a political party if those who are in it could take on a wide variety of different positions?

And then I also suggested that we shouldn't give priority to clearing up whether or not we are being reductive about the extreme right - mostly because they are not entirely deserving of fair treatment since they typically don't believe in it themselves and because it feeds into their central political strategy which involves crying foul rather than defending political positions.

Clearly we can go in circles about this.  What's the point.

You are a Beach Boys fan, and so am I.  That's all that matters.

Well, other things matter too. That's why we have an Off Topics section haha!

[Disney Boy (1985)]

This certainly is off topic. Still worth pointing out while I'm here to any Republicans present: you aint got no chance of getting elected. Sorry.

[Menace Wilson]

"I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia."

Then why did you take me to task for thanking Feelflows for his disclaimer?  Because you were in a bad mood?

[Menace Wilson]

This certainly is off topic. Still worth pointing out while I'm here to any Republicans present: you aint got no chance of getting elected. Sorry.

If Obama wasn't so awful, I'd agree with you. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

"I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia."

Then why did you take me to task for thanking Feelflows for his disclaimer?  Because you were in a bad mood?

For reasons that I stated in my previous post:

we shouldn't give priority to clearing up whether or not we are being reductive about the extreme right - mostly because they are not entirely deserving of fair treatment since they typically don't believe in it themselves and because it feeds into their central political strategy which involves crying foul rather than defending political positions.

[Menace Wilson]

we shouldn't give priority to clearing up whether or not we are being reductive about the extreme right - mostly because they are not entirely deserving of fair treatment since they typically don't believe in it themselves and because it feeds into their central political strategy which involves crying foul rather than defending political positions.

So they aren't necessarily racist and homophobic, but they do suck, therefore they deserve to be called racists and homophobes.  I think I've got it now.   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So they aren't necessarily racist and homophobic, but they do suck, therefore they deserve to be called racists and homophobes.  I think I've got it now.    

No, that's not quite it. When the political party makes it its business to be reductivist in order to push a particular platform (i.e. reducing particular Mexicans inside the U.S. to criminals, reducing legitimate marriage to one that is biologically procreative) then they are in no position to make demands that others shouldn't apply  the same standard to them that they are applying themselves to others when it suits their agenda. Certainly, they don't "deserve to be called racists and homophobes" but it shouldn't be a priority to avoid at all costs hurting a Republicans feelings based on a reduction since they themselves don't take such precautions when using their own political power - something which is much more significant and meaningful to a larger amount of people.

[Menace Wilson]

So they aren't necessarily racist and homophobic, but they do suck, therefore they deserve to be called racists and homophobes.  I think I've got it now.   

No, that's not quite it. When the political party makes it its business to be reductivist in order to push a particular platform (i.e. reducing particular Mexicans inside the U.S. to criminals, reducing legitimate marriage to one that is biologically procreative) then they are in no position to make demands that others shouldn't apply to them the same standard to them that they are applying themselves when it suits their agenda.

Such a strange argument we're having!  By "particular Mexicans inside the U.S." I assume you mean illegal immigrants?  Is it "reductivist" to point out that illegally entering the country is illegal?   

[Autotune]

Best flux thread ever.

[Jcc]

Arrghh!

"Rock and Roll" 's posts illustrate exactly why political discourse is impossible in this country.  According to him, if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies in any way, you are an "extreme right-winger" who is a racist, sexist homophobe.  Nice.  So instead of debating the issues, you resort to name-calling and stereotypes.

Seems to me they used to call that Fascism.  But if a non-Republican like "Rock and Roll" says it, then it becomes "Progressive!"

The graph you link to is garbage as well.  It's a nice little trick of shaping a political narrative by freezing politicians in cute little squares.  Who makes the rules on that graph?  Who determines whether a certain politician is above or below the authoritarian/libertarian line?  Why are all these Republican politicians up in the "authoritarian" quadrant, far above Barack Obama, I might add?  By what policies?  Cite them please.

Despite what you might think, the entire point of the Tea Party movement and American conservatism in general is a call for LESS Government involvement in both the economy and our daily lives.  And to the extent that any Republican would call for the use of Government to enact some sort of theology-based program, then that Republican is not a conservative, but another big-government progressive who happens to wear a Republican suit.

I really hope "Rock and Roll" that you don't truly believe that you represent the forces of sweetness and light, and that all Republicans are the epitome of darkness and evil.   Not only is that quite un-American but any ideology that would teach you to think that way probably does not have YOUR best interests in mind.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Such a strange argument we're having!  By "particular Mexicans inside the U.S." I assume you mean illegal immigrants?  Is it "reductivist" to point out that illegally entering the country is illegal?   

It is when it doesn't take into account that most of those "illegal immigrants" are currently residing mostly on land that was Mexican territory violently taken in US expansion. It is amusing that there probably aren't many Mexicans who would view Americans living in, say, Mexico or Arizona as illegal immigrants in Mexico, but they would have a pretty good argument on their hands. Most of all, though, the reason why there are so many Mexicans in the country is mostly a consequence of NAFTA treaties that were purposefully constructed to favor US industry at the expense of the Mexican population. I'm sorry but, in this case, the whole construction of Mexicans as "illegal immigrants" emanates from powerful imperial sectors who require a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico and it is filtered to the population through scare tactics like "they are draining our economy" and "they are stealing our jobs" and so the American people who are also exploited by the powerful imperial state are often scared into adopting their positions.

[Jcc]

  
[/quote]

No, that's not quite it. When the political party makes it its business to be reductivist in order to push a particular platform (i.e. reducing particular Mexicans inside the U.S. to criminals, reducing legitimate marriage to one that is biologically procreative) [/quote]

How is that reductivist?  If a person crosses our borders illegally, they have broken federal law.  It is a criminal offense.  A nation has the right to defend its own borders and control its own immigration policies.  I don't understand why this is such a shock to you.  If you don't like the law, then work to change it, but don't say that it is an injustice to enforce an existing law.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the State recognizing gay marriages, but I also don't have a problem with a church that refuses to recognize them.   And I don't think the government should ever make an attempt to force that church to comply.  However, I do think that if a state is going to recognize same-sex marriages, it needs to happen through the ballot box and not through a decree from a federal court judge.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Arrghh!

"Rock and Roll" 's posts illustrate exactly why political discourse is impossible in this country.  According to him, if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies in any way, you are an "extreme right-winger" who is a racist, sexist homophobe.  Nice.  So instead of debating the issues, you resort to name-calling and stereotypes.

I suggest you actually look back - namely nine posts above you where I state (and let me bold this for you) that "I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia." You begin with flat out lying about what I've said and then immediately begin to mischaracterize my whole point of view by suggesting that it would mean something to me "if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies" when, in fact, I am a fierce opponent and critic of practically all of Barack Obama's policies - the reason why should be evident in the thread where I talk about the Democrat vs. Republican debate as a theatrical fiction. You may simply not understand my point. Either way, you entirely falsely represent it and mischaracterize it here. Everything else in the thread collapses because of the very false premise you have established. I would gladly though debate points that I have actually stated.

[SMiLE Brian]

People need to do away with political parties and make up their own minds.

[Menace Wilson]

It is when it doesn't take into account that most of those "illegal immigrants" are currently residing mostly on land that was Mexican territory violently taken in US expansion.

Now we're talking about the 1840s?  I give up.  You win. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Now we're talking about the 1840s?  I give up.  You win.  

This is how it always is, of course. When it comes to violent territorial expansion, it's just the way things are. Nothing you can do about. "It was so far back, why should it matter?" When it comes to immigration where harm could potentially come to major business owners, it should be dealt with by law in the most stringent, authoritarian manner possible. Either way, by bringing up that example, I'm simply saying that most Americans are not much of a position to complain as they sit on what was once Mexican territory. As you'll note too by my post that this is more of a background issue.

[Awesoman]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not judging anyone for their political views...

You have a funny way of showing it.

[Awesoman]

Others can do it better, but let me give the semi-abridged version:

A lot of this was blown waaayyyy out of proportion. Leave it to the political scholars to argue that one on the how's and why's, but the version(s) some in this thread are reading isn't 100% accurate.

Ronald Reagan didn't ban the Beach Boys from anything. They played the show in 1981 and again in 1984. That should be the end of the story. But here's the rest:

James Watt was Reagan's Secretary Of The Interior, a cabinet position. One of his duties was to oversee the national parks and facilities, including the concerts held on those grounds. In 1981, The Beach Boys played. In 1982, The Grass Roots played, and Watt's office received complaints about drug use, assaults, and an increase in people treated for drug- and alcohol-related health emergencies and injuries that day. A group of a few hundred people there staged a smoke-in supporting legalizing pot at the show.

Watt is/was an unabashed conservative - apart from hearing reports of both the usual booze-fueled idiots and intoxicated concertgoers making it hard for families to enjoy the show, his solution was to write a memo in late 1982 about "attracting families" and offering "patriotic and inspirational" entertainment at the July 4th concerts in the future, in response and reaction to the complaint and the stats he received about intoxication and assaults at the Grass Roots show. It was his response - agree or disagree, he wanted to make the concert more family friendly in response to complaints on his desk.

According to Watt, he or his staff never mentioned the Beach Boys by name, never banned them or anyone, and says when he wrote that memo, the Beach Boys had not been booked for the concert that next year (1983). What turned into a media firestorm which saw him being called out and his resignation being demanded was based on hearsay and lies, and the assumption he "meant" The Beach Boys despite not naming them because they played in 1981 - ignoring The Grass Roots concert completely. Again, Watt claims his memo (the one reported on in the news of the day) did not mention the Beach Boys, they had not been booked for the 1983 show, and he was responding to the happenings at the 1982 concert where the BB's did not play. And he was almost publicly destroyed once the rock community picked this up from the print media, I believe the Washington Post ran the initial story in print.

Now going through the how's and why's that memo got turned into headlines saying Watt "banned" the Beach Boys from the DC concerts and in this thread how Reagan "banned" the Beach Boys...that's getting into political stuff, left-versus-right, and I don't wanna go there...here.

So what happened? Watt was publicly made a scapegoat, you see footage of him accepting a "foot in the mouth" award from Reagan in the "American Band" video along with a completely phony news voiceover describing the so-called "facts" of the story, along with video of the BB's hanging out with Ron and Nancy Reagan. It was a horrible PR move to alienate a few million potential voters in the year before an election year, especially with a band as American as the BB's, and Reagan and his advisers were trying to smooth things out by becoming strong champions and friends of the Beach Boys as "America's Band". That's politics, right and left. Whether the band goes along with it is their right as a citizen to believe what they choose. If Mike liked hanging with the Reagans, if he found them nice people or whatever else, that's his business. Don't hold it against the music if you don't like Reagan.

What the Reagan White House did with the BB's is called damage control; politics is nasty and they have to protect the guys at the top by throwing underlings under the bus, making scapegoats out of names the general public barely knows.

Am I defending James Watt? Whatever one wants to think - I'm just offering up his version of the story, which I think is crucial to telling the whole story for the sake of history. Maybe Watt is covering his own a**, again judge for yourself after reading more on this.

But Reagan didn't ban anything, let's set that straight and bust the myth, and it would appear the guy who got blamed for it didn't ban anything either, despite news reports which created the firestorm.

If anyone has more insider info or can clarify any points above, please do!

Looks good to me.  Haven't read all of this thread but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Reagan was a big-enough fan of the group that he allowed Dennis Wilson to be buried at sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/03/us/reagan-helps-get-approval-for-musician-s-burial-at-sea.html

[anazgnos]

Looks good to me.  Haven't read all of this thread but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Reagan was a big-enough fan of the group that he allowed Dennis Wilson to be buried at sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/03/us/reagan-helps-get-approval-for-musician-s-burial-at-sea.html

Dennis' sea-burial ends up looking like blowback from the Watt affair.  The administration seems to have been going out of their way to underline that nobody has anything against the Beach Boys, seriously!

[b00ts]

This certainly is off topic. Still worth pointing out while I'm here to any Republicans present: you aint got no chance of getting elected. Sorry.

I don't know that any Republican candidates read this board, unless you know something I don't.... Anyway yes, the Republicans are in a similar position today to the one the Democrats found themselves in, in 2004. Like Kerry, Romney is a middle of the roader who satisfies neither the base nor the "swing voter." It seems to all be set up this way - like we live in a one party system where they pass the baton to each other every eight years.

Anyway, enough of that - let's talk about Mike's political views. He is pro-censorship (or was in the 1980s, supporting the PMRC) and he is an environmentalist. Does anyone know if Mike votes Republican? He has a strange, unique melange of liberal hippy ideals and right-wing notions. Fascinating combination in his case.

[Jcc]

I suggest you actually look back - namely nine posts above you where I state (and let me bold this for you) that "I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia."[/quote]

You're quite right.  You don't actually state that you equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia.  I stand corrected.  Sorry about that.  Nevertheless, you still define being a Republican as being a right-wing extremist.  What do you see as right-wing extremism?