« Astroturf On Steroids | Main | The science is in... there is no science »

Study Finds that Majority of Democrats Have Positive View of Socialism

Yes, this is real. All I have to say is:

The U.S.S.R., or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was the cause of millions of deaths caused by their economic system. Cuba's economic system has millions, and more importantly, a very high percent of people, living in abject poverty. North Korea, Vietnam, and China have thousands dying ever year of starvation.

No nation that has ever existed has survived a socialistic economic system for more than one hundred years. Every single one collapsed.

Looking at history, there is no way in hell that anyone with a conscience can see socialism and think, "I like the sound of that!"

Disgusting. This is so awful, I can't even bring myself to bash Democrats. I'm simply disgusted.

Cross-posted at Jumping in Pools


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38204.

Comments (49)

Who'd a thunk?... (Below threshold)
914:

Who'd a thunk?

I have a question for Steve... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

I have a question for Steve Green, bryanD or any liberal troll.

What do you think about the performance of the very liberal Speaker of the House since January 2007, Nancy Pelosi? Do you think she has been effective or do you think she has squandered the greatest chance liberals have ever had to impose their agenda on America?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Yeah, Venezuela is going gr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Yeah, Venezuela is going great guns isn't it. But don't worry, Obama knows everything and THIS TIME HE'LL GET IT RIGHT.

Too bad we can't take all those progressives, give them a portion of the country to live in, and then leave them to their own devices.

Some people will never get ... (Below threshold)
mag:

Some people will never get it, or they don't want to get it...that would mean they were so wrong all along.
Though I suppose it is the perfect system for people who want to control everything, or feel guilty because they have more than most, and of course there are the others would just love to have the govermment or someone to wipe their behinds and their running noses from conception to death.

Democrats: "Well, of... (Below threshold)

Democrats: "Well, of course socialism has always failed in the past, but that's only because we weren't in charge back then. They didn't believe hard enough, but we will, and this time it'll work. This time for sure!"

Sounds like the expected re... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Sounds like the expected result of our educational system.

As I've said before....liberals are not that bright.

ps. Mag, well said.

Care to chime in with Your ... (Below threshold)
914:

Care to chime in with Your take on this Stevie f Green?

Actually liberals are smart... (Below threshold)
recoverd liberal democrat:

Actually liberals are smart. They just have to be smarter than everyone else. They cannot handle the fact that someone with a lower I.Q. could be successful or do something beneficial to society and themselves. On "their" fairness meter that's a negative. That is why there are some smart people that support "Obamacare" or cap and trade or any other expansion of government. Socialism is like Linus' blanket or binki. It makes them "feel" comfortable regardless of what the country wants. And, they know better doncha know.

Thank government reeducatio... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Thank government reeducation camps. They have purged curricula having to do with free-market economics or American founding principles.

My son is in an AP U.S. History class now. His female teacher goes to great lengths to 'teach' the students about early feminism and to extol the virtues of Supreme Court justice John Marshall.

His first required reading in the class was "The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America" by Gary Nash. The book minimizes the importance of the founding fathers.

His teacher lately has launched attacks on the notion that America was founded on Christian principles and preached on the elimination of the electoral college. My son is brilliant. He does not agree with the teachers conclusions, but he writes his papers slanted to her expectations. He wants to keep his 4.0 GPA intact.

The trouble with this artic... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

The trouble with this article and studies such as this is that the terms are somewhat nebulous and undefined. I don't think it is valid to compare the vague term "socialism" with the Russian model of communism as Michael implies in his blog post.

I rather suspect that most Americans would also have favorable views of the term Egalitarianism (at least those who understand the meaning of the term). They would recognize that egalitarian principles are clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Yet few would also dispute that egalitarianism is the basis for socialist political philosophy.

Egalitarianism is definitel... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Egalitarianism is definitely the basis of socialist marketing... but if it really is the core of the philosophy, it only reveals how deeply flawed it is when you look at the results.

Little by little our govern... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Little by little our government has enacted policies that shrink the middle class. The left then complains bitterly about the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

The moment I hear a politician say they want to help middle class working families I check to make sure my wallet is still in my purse.

You want to see the middle class totally disappear? Stay on the road we're on and give the Democrats control of the gas pedal. The standard of living for the middle to upper-middle class will drop, the poor will remain poor and the rich to the uber-rich will be fine. They'll just have a little less to play with.

These people wishing for socialism don't know what it means. They haven't a clue on even how to think this through to it's logical conclusion.

The fact that a quarter of ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

The fact that a quarter of Americans have a positive view of Socialism doesn't mean that those people want it here in America.

I have a positive view of bikinis - that doesn't mean I want to wear one.

"Disgusting. This is so awful, I can't even bring myself to bash Democrats. I'm simply disgusted."

Poor baby - but I'm glad you found something that disgusts you. It figures that it doesn't warrant disgust - but anything to please an audience of people who look for disgusting things to talk about, right?

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this post.
depp=true

You neocons are filth! FILT... (Below threshold)
Victory is Mao's:

You neocons are filth! FILTH I SAY!!!

Peace.

Thanks for chiming in Steve... (Below threshold)
914:

Thanks for chiming in Steve. Ha ha ha ha.. How in the hell can anyone have a positive view on Socialism? Unless You enjoy serfdom like a wet dream? So what are the positive points of socialism Steve? Being told how to think, what to eat, where and when to work or being told where to send You ACORN due's and pick up Your brownshirts?

Ha ha ha ha ha

As a liberal I find it upse... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

As a liberal I find it upsetting that such a high percentage of people would have a positive view of socialism. However, I suspect it may have to do with the changing definition of the word socialism. Over the years there has been a constant attempt by some on the right to classify virtually every democratic position as socialism.This has resulted in the watering down of the meaning of the word. It would be interesting to see the survey repeated, but this time have it include the dictionary definition of socialism.

Hey Stevie. If you want to ... (Below threshold)
Stan25:

Hey Stevie. If you want to live under a socialist system, go to Zimbabwe and Venezuela or for that matter, Cuba. Those countries' leaders seem to espouse the same view as you and the rest of the Trolls here. Hell, if you can't afford the plane ticket, I am sure that there are a more than enough people that post here that would contribute to the fund to buy said ticket.

How in the hell can anyo... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

How in the hell can anyone have a positive view on Socialism.

The problem is that term is commonly applied to anyone that supports any kind of social program. By this definition, social programs, such as public education would fall under socialism.

Part of the problem is that... (Below threshold)
Highlander:

Part of the problem is that they don't teach history in the public schools anymore. They teach "social studies".

And perhaps there are peopl... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

And perhaps there are people who believe the bullshit spewed by the right wing morons who whine that Obama is a socialist.

And some people then look at Obama and don't see a problem with his policies... and then form a view that "socialism" (as it is practiced in the US today - again - according to right wing morons) is not a bad thing.

That's what we get when people like Sarah Palin lie the American electorate. A distorted view of what socialism is...

"Look - Obama is a socialist" - says Palin.

And some Americans may then look at Obama and think - I guess socialism isn't such a bad thing after all.

I think Tina is right - many Americans who see Socialism as a positive thing probably are working off a distorted view of what Socialism is.

That comes form right wing liars and sycophants polluting the meme pool.

and the band played on...

Tina S,Here's defi... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Tina S,

Here's definition 1 of Socialism from dictionary.com:

" a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

The reason we on the right call virtually everything the Democrats want to do "socialism" is because they FIT THE DEFINITION.

Every time the government grows, gains more power/control/influence, it becomes more socialist in nature.

There's been no watering down or changing of the definition needed.

Little Stevie Green,<... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Little Stevie Green,

Oooohhhh, please keep calling us morons! I hope you and everyone like you on the left just keeps doing that. The more the better!

Please keep doing what you are doing...loudly!! Get all your friends to do it as well.

Please keep telling everyone you know that Sarah is stupid and a liar!

Please keep telling everyone that Obama is wonderful!!

Just keep doing what your doing at least until the first Tuesday in November.

Please oh please oh please!

Sincerely,

-syb (Proud moron in the eyes of Little Stevie Green)

a theory or system... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

And if you gave that description to the same people polled and asked if they favor that system and fewer would say yes.

But here in America the word "socialism" is tossed around by lying morons who themselves have no concept of what it means. They just no Fox News tells them Obama is a socialist and therefore they buy it. And a distorted view of what Socialism is results...

(Somewhere, I hear the v... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

(Somewhere, I hear the voice of Inigo Montoya ...) Look, even Gallup admitted that the personal connotations assigned to words affect how people think of them. According to that poll, 20% of self-identified Conservatives have a positive sense of Socialism. That's like Winston Churchill saying some Nazis are OK, or Steve Green admitting that W kept America safe while he was President, it's pretty much a contradiction in terms, but there it is.

I expect that a lot of folks have some very fuzzy ideas about what words mean. Synonym, by the way, is not a word with the same meaning as another word, but one with a similar meaning, a distinction lost on most of the planet to be frank. So with all the spin put on things, like folks using self-contradictory phrases like 'federal assistance', 'tax cut', and 'government accountability', is it any wonder folks have a widely divergent sense of what Capitalism, Socialism, Entrepreneurship, and Big Business really mean in real-world practice? The Lexicon is corrupted at the point of broadcast.

Stevie "hoisted on his own ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Stevie "hoisted on his own petard" Green: "But here in America the word "socialism" is tossed around by lying morons who themselves have no concept of what it means.


As opposed to lying morons like Steve here who toss about the concept of "the settled and peer-reviewed science of man-made global warming" and actually have no concept what it means.

Tell us again Steve about how all that "science is settled", won't you?

After all, you would not be so large a hypocrite to assert others are tossing terms and concepts around loosely while doing the same thing yourself, would you?

Would you?


Would you?

green-"That com... (Below threshold)
914:

green-

"That comes form right wing liars and sycophants polluting the meme pool."


That comes from right wing liars and sycophants polluting the meme pool.

There.

steve-


"They just no Fox News tells them Obama is a socialist and therefore they buy it. And a distorted view of what Socialism is results..."

Obama tells us He's a socialist with each attempt to forego the constituition and sieze private entitie's for His own diabolical purpose. A BIG centralized Government with Him as Dictator in Chief.

"They just no" ?

They just know.

914,Don't try to d... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

914,

Don't try to distract from the important things Stevie has to tell us morons!!

-syb

greenie -The conse... (Below threshold)
apb:

greenie -

The conservative/libertarian/normal people here DO have a concept of what socialism means.

It means a government that seeks to impose its crappy standards on us in the name of 'fairness'; a populist government too stupid to know what productivity means, who generates the productivity, and seeks to hammer down the productive people in the name of 'fairness'; a government that has a unified mass-media outlet to do its bidding in perpetuating lies to try to maintain control over the populace.

Jug-Eared Douche was a proponent of the take-over of 2 of the big 3. Jug-Eared Douche is in favor of taking over healthcare - where the gummint will dictate the level of income doctors should make. Jug-Eared Douche is a proponent of cap and trade to control us, as well as stimulus spending to expand government.

I know you libs are incomprehensibly stupid, but pull your fingers out of your ears, quit 'la-la-la-la'ing about Fox, and try to keep up. Jug-Eared Douche, his lobbyist brigade, and the spending lunacy in Congress are YOUR fault.

Tina S., public education i... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Tina S., public education is a shared goal that was successful at one time but as with "socialist" ideas, it is no longer effective but people (incompetent teachers) keep getting more money.

Conservatives believe (at least I do) what I do with my money is my business and mine alone. Just because someone did not have the motivation or self esteem to better themselves does not mean they are entitled to anything my hard earned wage. In my mind, if you think someone who does nothing should have input on whether they should get some of my money, then you are a socialist. ww

" a theory or syst... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:
" a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

I think that a key point here is that "government" is not the same as "community as a whole."

For instance, most people would agree that laws that impact "production and distribution, of capital, land" are a form of control on those items. And that laws that affect those items that protect the community as a whole are generally a good thing.

Zoning laws are a perfectly good example of this. Few of us want someone to come in and build a cat food processing plant next door to us and would agree that laws controlling this would be desirable, yet based on the above definition of socialism, we would have to conclude that zoning laws are socialistic.

Chilidog,Zoning ha... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Chilidog,

Zoning has nothing to do with the 'means' of production.

Just because you can't build your cat food plant next door to my house, doesn't mean you can't build it at all. You can take your means of production farther down the street and build it there. You are still in control of your means of production.

-syb

syb, If you have ever worke... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

syb, If you have ever worked in a process that involved siting a facility, then you will understand that zoning is a means by which communities exercise control over business.

if you don't like that, then look at environmental laws.

Environmental laws directly affect production, yet no one complains that preventing Monsanto from dumping as much wastes into the local streams is socialistic.

The issue here is that in many cases, the community as a whole does in fact benefit from the control of business.

There is a great deal of overlap between democracy and socialism.

By the way - the headline i... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

By the way - the headline is false. Its a public opinion poll -not a study.

I know your readers don't know the difference but I would expect that you do, Michael.

"Socialism" was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll.
depp=true notiz=great expectations!
Chilidog,I underst... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Chilidog,

I understand your point and it is valid, but I still disagree that what you are describing is socialism.

All the zoning in the world does not tell Monsanto that they HAVE to produce x pounds of cat food this month and charge y dollars for it.

It also does not mean that the community 'owns' Monsanto. If Monsanto isn't happy with one community they can take their toys and go to another community.

-syb

Steve "hoisted on his own p... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Steve "hoisted on his own petard" Green: "By the way - the headline is false. Its a public opinion poll -not a study. I know your readers don't know the difference but I would expect that you do, Michael."

By the way Steve, the IPCC "report" that you have been very vocal as supporting was not a real "study". In fact, it wasn't even "science". In fact, it wasn't even peer reviewed.

Steve, I know your pals don't know the difference, and, quite frankly, its all too obvious you don't as well.

Which is strange. Since you have been such a jackass in promoting this "report" as "settled science".

Again, this begs the question: Why is stevie-boy green incapable of following his own commentary guideline?

Is he just too dumb to see the contradictions?

SYB is correct. The defini... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

SYB is correct. The definition is "ownership and control". As a community we have a level of control as to certain rules to apply when doing business, but they do not include "ownership and control of the means of production and distribution".

Sun rises in the east.<br /... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Sun rises in the east.
Moon revolves around the earth.
Majority of Democrats have positive view of socialism.

"No nation that has ever ex... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"No nation that has ever existed has survived a socialistic economic system for more than one hundred years. Every single one collapsed."-ma

Germany, 1883-present

Bismarck termed it State Socialism in 1881.

Essentially a welfare state which has passed the USA in exports while maintaining shorter man-hours worked, an excellent healthcare system topped by unbelievably fine infrastructure.

Now, you can say, wern't the Hohenzollerns toppled and didn't the Third Reich fall?

And I'll give you John Keegan's answer, that Germany, the nation, appears to have won WW2, and that the German welfare state was never in danger of being replaced, anyway.

So Germany, 1883-present. (I'm not even counting the small, less boisterous countries like Holland and Denmark and Sweden.)

s green..... "I think T... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green..... "I think Tina is right - many Americans who see Socialism as a positive thing probably are working off a distorted view of what Socialism is."

And some Americans, most probably YOU, see an admin that has Mao ornaments on the WH Christmas tree, communist van jones, a nut case "diversity czar" in the FCC who thinks Chavaz was part of a "wonderful revolution", another nut who thinks Mao is someone to admire see absolutely NOTHING wrong with it.

But WE DO.

For Steve Green, there's a ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

For Steve Green, there's a very simple question:

If 25% of Republicans were found to have a positive view of "fascism," would you be nearly so dismissive and blithely accepting?

Somehow, I think not.

Instead, no doubt we'd be treated to an extended diatribe on how this shows the real nature of conservatives, Republicans, and the like.

Could be that when most peo... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Could be that when most people hear about socialist countries, they think of Sweden, not Cuba.

If you asked them what kind of government Cuba has, they would not say "socialist", the would say "communist".

#9 we had the same experie... (Below threshold)
MF:

#9 we had the same experiences when the girls attended college.
Alls one can do as a parent is present other views

Jeff,"Tha... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jeff,

"Thank government reeducation camps. They have purged curricula having to do with free-market economics or American founding principles.

Questions: if you could choose, what economic theories would you include in the required curricula? Which free-market theories would you include in the canon? Just wondering where you stand.

Also, what American founding principles would you teach? Would you leave out all critical history?

Do you only want your son to learn a version of history that you agree with or that pleases your political sensibilities?

My son is in an AP U.S. History class now. His female teacher goes to great lengths to 'teach' the students about early feminism and to extol the virtues of Supreme Court justice John Marshall.

I don't see a problem with learning about early feminism. What's wrong with that? Who is learning about?

Also, what is it about Marshall that students should not learn about? How is the teacher presenting his ideas?

Now, if the teacher is just using class to push a political agenda, that's a problem.

But again, is the point of education simply to present views that you find agreeable? Your son should be able to read things that he disagrees with. I don't see a problem there. That's called critical thinking.

His first required reading in the class was "The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America" by Gary Nash. The book minimizes the importance of the founding fathers.

So? Does your son have to AGREE with everything he reads? Does he have to be spoon-fed only the information that he (or you) finds acceptable? Why not present different accounts of history? I see no reason why students should not read about various sides of politics, history, and economics. I definitely DO NOT think that education is just about only presenting histories that please everyone. History should be about more than just teaching kids idealistic/one-sided versions of the past. There should be room for various perspectives, since, of course, there were various perspectives when these events occurred.

His teacher lately has launched attacks on the notion that America was founded on Christian principles and preached on the elimination of the electoral college. My son is brilliant. He does not agree with the teachers conclusions, but he writes his papers slanted to her expectations. He wants to keep his 4.0 GPA intact.

The US was founded on various principles--and they weren't all Christian. Yes, Judeo-Christian ethics and philosophy played a role, but so did thinking from the European Enlightenment (and there was a fundamental tension between the two in many senses, but that's how things were). The Founding Fathers were dealing with a whole series of issues--and one of the major ones was finding a way to allow different religious sects to work under one system. That's why the US isn't a theocracy. And considering European history of the previous century (1600s) that was a pretty smart move.

Overall, I think it's good that your son is not just accepting whatever the teacher says. But I also think it's good that he is seeing some different perspectives. It helps refine what we think to hear opposing arguments. We should all be able to take the time to learn about history in a broad, critical manner. I seriously do not understand the aversion to looking into history for something more than just romantic stories about the Founding Fathers. There's a lot more to it--and it's not a bad thing to look at history critically, IMO.

MF:we had... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

MF:

we had the same experiences when the girls attended college. Alls one can do as a parent is present other views

So when you send your kids to college, do you want them to only learn about history that you find acceptable? Why do you send them to college? To learn, or to receive a particular education or worldview that you agree with? This is a serious question.

In my opinion, students should be taught all sides of history, and they should be allowed to find their own opinions about the matter. I am definitely against indoctrination, from either the left or the right. Absolutely.

But I also think that students have to learn how to be critical thinkers and learners. This means that students who agree with Adam Smith's economic ideas SHOULD read Marx and others to get an idea of what the debate was all about. And that should be encouraged, in part so that students actually know something about history, and so that they learn where they really stand on matters.

Shouldn't students be taught to ask questions? To challenge what they are learning?

By the way Michael,<p... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

By the way Michael,

There is a pretty serious difference between a "study" and a public opinion poll.

This Gallup poll is pretty silly. I suppose they just asked people for their reaction to some basic terms, but they did not really define exactly what any of those terms mean. This is why these kinds of surveys have to be taken with a grain of salt. It's really ridiculous to make too much of them and assume that they are reflecting some concrete reality. DJ already pointed out some of the issues with the poll above.

Ryan a, While you deftly br... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Ryan a, While you deftly break down another's argument into it's components you're missing the full picture. Taking an argument piece by piece is good for science, but in other cases it simply makes each part appear to be unrelated and easier to discount or dismiss.

Especially this part: "So? Does your son have to AGREE with everything he reads? Does he have to be spoon-fed only the information that he (or you) finds acceptable? Why not present different accounts of history?"

The teacher Jeff talks about has the entire curricula wrapped up in an anti-western slant.

The problem is that different accounts of history are often not being presented and in many cases can only be countered by a parent who has the knowledge to present the other side.

We're not saying that different views shouldn't be presented. We're saying that they're not.

Hell, we even have teachers and professors apt to go off on political tangents completely unrelated to the course. I've experienced it myself.

Oyster,"Taking an ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Oyster,

"Taking an argument piece by piece is good for science, but in other cases it simply makes each part appear to be unrelated and easier to discount or dismiss."

Taken as a whole, it sounds like Jeff is irritated about the ways in which history is being taught. It mostly sounds like he does not like any sort of critical history. It sounds to me like he just wants his son to learn a version of history that fits his understandings of what the formation of the US was all about. Unfortunately, history is often a lot messier than we all want it to be. So should we just clean up history and only talk about the parts that fit with our national ideals? Or should we talk about Ben Franklin's shortcomings along with his genius (to give one example)?

"The teacher Jeff talks about has the entire curricula wrapped up in an anti-western slant."

Maybe. I would have to see the course outline. So far, nothing mentioned seems explicitly anti-western by any means--it does seem like there are some elements of critical history. What's wrong with that? Is it anti-western to realize that the formation of the US was a lot more complex that our gradeschool teachers told us it was?

This is exactly what I was asking Jeff about. How it is automatically anti-western to teach about early feminism? Are you saying that students should not learn about the push for the right to vote? Students should not learn about the push to gain a more equal standing in US society?

Granted, some forms of feminism took things pretty far, and there was (and is) a lot of backlash against aspects of the really radical feminist agenda. But in my opinion students should learn about these debates, these conflicts, and these histories. Why skip over them? Learning about history is different than indoctrination. You make it sound like teaching various aspects of US history just brainwashes kids. I think you underestimate the students' abilities to think.

Also, how is assigning a critical historical text (like the one Nash wrote) automatically anti-western? Because it doesn't teach the history that you or Jeff wants to talk about? Should we NOT discuss Native Americans? Should we not talk about the inherent discord between the ideals of the Declaration and the historical fact of slavery?

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man, but he wasn't perfect by any means. Why whitewash history? Why not read his actual words and his battles with trying to reconcile his ideals with some of his realities?

How would you teach US history? What texts or authors would you include? Would you keep out all critical history?

"The problem is that different accounts of history are often not being presented and in many cases can only be countered by a parent who has the knowledge to present the other side."

Ok, I can understand that. Here is the issue that I have though. From what Jeff was saying, it sounds like he is against any form of critical history. This means that he probably isn't going to like ANY in-depth historical study of US history, which certainly was NOT as pretty as some folks like to imagine. I don't see the problem with that. Are we sending kids to history class to be indoctrinated into a romantic nationalistic history (like many countries do) or are we trying to teach them to look at the past in all its complexities in order to teach them to THINK about these things?

"We're not saying that different views shouldn't be presented. We're saying that they're not."

I can understand this concern as well, since history and we teach it is a critical issue. What views, in your opinion, are being left out of US history (to stick with that one for a minute)?

"Hell, we even have teachers and professors apt to go off on political tangents completely unrelated to the course. I've experienced it myself."

Ah, so now a couple of personal experiences casts doubt upon all college teaching? Really? Maybe it's a little more complicated than this. I have experienced classes where profs let their politics get a little in the way--it happens. I certainly do not think that the classroom is the place for political grandstanding, AT ALL. But I also do not think that we should just teach students A) what they agree with B) what their parents agree with or C) what they feel comfortable with. College is a place to be challenged, to learn how to think critically, and to learn how to deal with opposing views, ideas, histories, and politics, IMO.


One more Oyster,I ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

One more Oyster,

I meant to add that while I have had some profs let their politics through little too much, I have also had a ton who do not...or who are able to teach without telling students what THEY should think. That's the ideal.

Still, I think students SHOULD be able to listen to profs who have different views. This means that those Che Guevara undergrads who think they know everything should be exposed to some critical historical views of what Che and his comrades were really up to. They should really read about the histories of Cuba, and what has been done there.

It applies to all sides. The Milton Friedman kids should be exposed to some histories and ideas that take old uncle Milt to task. If there is something I can't stand it's when students just accept superficial histories and don't look deeper into things.

Overall, I think ALL students need to learn how to handle opposing views a lot better. This goes for the really liberal students who don't really know what they mean when they talk about "capitalism" and the very conservative students who often have issues with the same term. One side thinks it's all evil (while they drive their mom's SUV), and the other talks about capitalism as if there aren't any contradictions or problems (like military interventions into the market, which violate the ideals of a supposed "free-market").

Leftist actor RED ED ASNER ... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

Leftist actor RED ED ASNER who was in that crappy 80s series LOU GRANT is a big time admier of the infamous JOE STALIN since ASNER played a left-wing news paper editor we should be surprised at hollywoods leftists leaning or the demacraps at well




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy