John O’Sullivan, an exceptional commentator on the culture, wrote that one morality was being replaced by another, though most of us were only dimly aware of it as it occurred.... O’Sullivan describes the combat between new vs. traditional (get ready for two laundry lists here): “Traditional morality was religious, duty based, rooted in individual responsibility, governed by objective rules, self-controlled, ascetic, guilt-forgiving, repentant, hierarchical, patriotic and stern. The new morality was secular, rights based, rooted in social causes, governed by subjective interpretation, self-asserting, hedonistic, guilt-denying, therapeutic, egalitarian, universalist and indulgent.”

John O’Sullivan, an exceptional commentator on the culture, wrote that one morality was being replaced by another, though most of us were only dimly aware of it as it occurred.... O’Sullivan describes the combat between new vs. traditional (get ready for two laundry lists here): “Traditional morality was religious, duty based, rooted in individual responsibility, governed by objective rules, self-controlled, ascetic, guilt-forgiving, repentant, hierarchical, patriotic and stern. The new morality was secular, rights based, rooted in social causes, governed by subjective interpretation, self-asserting, hedonistic, guilt-denying, therapeutic, egalitarian, universalist and indulgent.”

If we all agreed...

Thanks wild. :wink:

Part of the reason that conservatives are so opposed to this new morality is that it brings so many undesirable things to the surface. What used to be considered decadent is now mainstream.

And part of the reason conservatives hold onto traditional values is because it's believed that these "old-fashioned" values were key in to the growth and prosperity of this country.

Sudo-intellectual claptrap.

Inventing a vaguely described continuum and then dividing it into 2 parts is inherently flawed, and while it might reinforce the GOP core's ideas about itself, it is insulting and gives short shrift to liberal arguments. The truth is more complicated.

Here's more food for thought from the same commentator:
http://www.suntimes.com/.../cst-edt-osul31.html

He describes Bush as a liberal, pointing out his various policies, most of which are failed versions of old liberal dogma...


UB

I hate this kind of nonsense where people take political issues and slap a moral overtone to them to try and polarize society into one division or the other. Liberals call conservatives racist zealouts, and coservatives call liberals immoral heathens.

Its pathetic and disgusting. Or country is great because our people are great, not because one political party had anything to do with it.

Sorry bumblie, can't fall in line with this rhetoric.

Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general. The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't. The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth. The rise in open animousity to those in power. Did you hear about the cop who was hospitalized by protesters in NYC?

If we tippy-toe around issues, what can we possibly produce?

*shakes head*

You're just silly.

I've got to stop doing it though. I usually target bumblie, bluto, danooguy, and a few others and it isn't right for me to do that. I'm working on stopping right now, regardless of how I feel about Bush (hate the man--obviously). I have no right screwing up their debate and they have every right to not like Kerry.

Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general. The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't. The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth. The rise in open animousity to those in power. Did you hear about the cop who was hospitalized by protesters in NYC?

These are pretty vague generalizations that don't hold much water. I would agree with the sex idea, but only so far as a young liberal hippie is more likely to have a casual attitude toward sex than an old, southern baptist housewife.

However, the rest is pretty much B.S. The "mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't" is just conservative rhetoric that generalizes a subject in which both sides are infinitely more complex. Do you really think that awarding contracts to Halliburton without competition is promoting "individual responsibility". Or, you can look at Bush's own business record to see how responsible he was while running his company (which was basically given to him) into the ground.

As for the "rise in open animosity to those in power", I can only point my finger to the Clinton years. How often were he and hillary accused of murdering someone to cover things up? He was challenged during wartime (kosovo) openly by conservatives, but it was so "unpatriotic" for liberals to do the same.

Actually, I was thinking about single women today versus 40 years ago. Do you think they could've made those Girls Gone Wild videos twenty years ago?... ten years ago? Look at prime time tv - open talk about casual sex is the norm, and many people feel the same.

Nice try. Bush doesn't exactly fit the standard of conservative values. Most conservatives consider him to be the lesser of two evils. What are your thoughts on universal healthcare? Look at your stereotypical dirtbagger. Should the government (meaning the taxpayers) pay for his healthcare because he'd rather climb all the time instead of holding down a full-time job? This ties nicely into the issue of self-reliance. Don't you think?

You're talking about "free speech". That whole "unpatriotic" vitriol sounded like anti-war groups getting offended at Bush supporters using their first amendment rights. Dissent is a two way street.

By open animousity, I'm talking about celebrations turning into acts of vandalism and arson, disruptions and violence as a form of protest i.e. WTO meetings and the growing number of anarchist groups committed to much more than peaceful protest.

Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general. The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't. The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth. The rise in open animousity to those in power.

Actually, I was thinking about single women today versus 40 years ago. Do you think they could've made those Girls Gone Wild videos twenty years ago?... ten years ago? Look at prime time tv - open talk about casual sex is the norm, and many people feel the same.

By open animousity, I'm talking about celebrations turning into acts of vandalism and arson, disruptions and violence as a form of protest i.e. WTO meetings and the growing number of anarchist groups committed to much more than peaceful protest.

Actually, I was thinking about single women today versus 40 years ago. Do you think they could've made those Girls Gone Wild videos twenty years ago?... ten years ago? Look at prime time tv - open talk about casual sex is the norm, and many people feel the same.

Furthermore, violence, property distruction, and such as a component of protest is absolutely nothing new in American history, and it in fact helped lead to the creation of this country.

...never a strong argument in my opinion. Slavery was also "nothing new" at one point in American history.

That something is "nothing new" is not necessarily proof of its validity. Violence and property destruction are the anti-thesis of what we've worked towards in building a constitutional-based method of granting freedoms. In fact they are part and parcel of warfare, which is generally accepted as a last resort. Social and politcal change can be accomplished by a variety of methods in America without violence and property destruction and if you find yourself (not you personally, dook) hanging around with people that condone such methodology you are in the company of people that are perhaps just a few shades removed from the KKK mentality.

If you disagree with me, I'll kick you ass and burn your house down.

So I am in favor of direct non-violent action. Direct action in general (protests, sit-ins, etc.), as people like Samuel Adams realized, is a sign that the normal processes which the people can use to effect change in their government are clogged. When that is the case, or people even feel wronged, it is not surprising that they will get out and do something in their power to do.

Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general.

The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't.

The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth.

The rise in open animousity to those in power. Did you hear about the cop who was hospitalized by protesters in NYC?