How Should Conservatives Deal with the Left’s Disrespect and Lack of Empathy?
The second possibility is that liberals do have the capacity to empathize with conservatives, but they do not have to do so because of the liberal bubble they mostly live in. Schools, the media, and many of the cities they live in lean left. This means that there is no incentive to understand other ideas and there are no consequences for showing disgust and ugly feelings towards conservatives. Thus, Goldstein’s ex-professor feels free to vent at him — knowing that few will care.
For example, if a Republican vents at a Democrat, he or she will be seen as a “hate-monger.” For an example of this, notice how Eric Cantor can have his office shot at and it is played down with all kinds of excuses, while if the tea partiers are said to have shouted at Democrats without any proof, it is taken as the gospel truth, with no video needed. The left are just “innocent victims.”
So what is the prescription here for those of us who are conservative or libertarian? There may be no way to get the “other side” to understand our views, for they may not have the capacity to do so. Until the lack of empathy for conservatives miraculously changes, we might do better to grow our own ranks, getting more of us involved, rather than trying to rationalize our own views to the other side. Giving in only wastes valuable time that could be put to better use and makes liberals more likely to treat us poorly.
At the same time, we should consider that it could be a lack of consequences that allows liberals to lack empathy or understanding for their fellow right-leaning citizens. Expanding right-leaning media and exposing liberals to ridicule and consequences (e.g., Andrew Breitbart) might then be the correct path to take, for the ease with which they attack may decrease once they realize that they will not get off scott-free as they once did.
Finally, and my third possibility, is it could be lack of education that allows the left to lack empathy. They are not exposed to right-leaning and libertarian ideas. For example, how many classes at school are teaching about the ideas of Hayek,
Perhaps a combination of all three is needed: expanding right-leaning media, getting more people involved, and making sure consequences are dealt out to those liberals who lie and treat conservatives with disrespect. Yes, this means all of us speaking up wherever we are when we hear false, inflammatory, or just plain mean remarks made about conservatives. And finally, clamoring for more diverse educational topics and literature in the schools and media would be helpful.
Conservatives shouldn’t back down on any of this, ever. For it is persistence and consistency that will eventually win the day. The left did it for decades and it clearly works. The left’s advantage has been that the right caves and is so worried about appearing moral that they back down, conceding any power. The right’s advantage is that we understand how the other side thinks, while they do not. Keep this in mind when you think about strategies to keep our liberties and freedoms intact.
If you have some better or different ideas about strategies for conservatives or libertarians in dealing with the left’s disrespect and lack of empathy, drop it in the comment section.
If not ‘psychopath’ for some leftists…perhaps ‘sociopath’:
Profile of the Sociopath
More at source link:
Profile of the Sociopath
—————–
Some of the above definitely fits a few liberal under-the-bridge folks who comment here on PJM. *cough-cough*
Either you were attempting to be facetious or your a moron. To brand someone of a particular political mainstream ideology as a sociopath or psychopath goes beyond ridiculous. Obviously traits of these mental disordereds are present in various types of people accross various creeds, disciplines and belief systems (be it political or otherwise). Lets re-apply your previous argumet to the bush administration:
●Manipulative and Conning
just as in the UK the current and previous political figures are undergoing an inquiry as to the legality of the iraq war, it too can be argued that cheney & bush too played a part in deceiving THE WORLD (hyperbole intended) that iraq posed a serious and legitimate threat. As this is now seriously questionable, they were therefore MANIPULATIVE AND CUNNING
●Grandiose Sense of Self
PNAC? anymore grandiose and arogant than the philosophy behind the project for a new american century???
●Pathological Lying
Once again, seems a lot of lies were told in the run up to the invasion of iraq.
●Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Do you see cheney, rumsfeld or bush looking concerned or even remotely bothered about the amount of people who have been killed in iraq? oh and what about new orleans?
●Shallow Emotions
new orleans
●Incapacity for Love
new orleans
●Need for Stimulation
cocaine abuse
●Callousness/Lack of Empathy
lol, nuff said!!
●Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
bush in a nutshell
●Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
BUSH IN A NUTSHELL!!!
●Irresponsibility/Unreliability
BUSHHHH INNN A NUTSHELLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ha
See how easy it is to brand people as a sociopath
You have GOT to be kidding!
Glibness and Superficial Charm
●Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Riiiiight. Like Republicans and Right wing Christians who insist on snooping into women’s lives and bodies? What about the refusal to recognize the rights of gays? Hmm, “leftists” seem to be the ones who try to stand up for the rights of others.
●Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
as another commenter mentioned – PNAC??? Imperialism a la Bush?
Oh yes, many “leftists” do think that all people should have a right to health care,education, a home, clean water and food. Shame on them for thinking people should be entitled to such simple things. Republicans think that only THEY should have a right to such things and get inordinately angry when the government tries to make sure everyone has this, even brown and black people.
●Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
There is enough lying on both sides. While I recognize that it could be only that I avoid such “news” sources as FOX, I have noticed more lies spewing from the likes of Sarah Palin than the likes of our president.
●Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Golly, this sounds like Bush again. And the guys on Wall Street – wonder which side they’d identify with? Bet its not the left!
●Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Liiiike the fools that threw bricks and called names and are outraged that health care might be a little easier for poor people to obtain now? Guess what I was outraged about? Iraq. Afghanistan. Depleted Uranium munitions being used. The farce that was the official story for 9/11. And who was unmoved by these atrocities? Who perpetrated them? Whoops, republicans again.
●Incapacity for Love
●Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
This one is way too easy. That screeching Sarah Palin. Spitting on Emmanuel Cleaver. Bush II’s drug problems. McCain calling his wife a cu*t in front of reporters and people on his advance team. Seriously?
●Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Whoo boy, it gets even easier. Cheney saying water boarding is a “no brainer”
Excuse me, but its the liberals trying to stop torture from being used – its the republicans who insist on it even though every other civilized nation (all a bunch of pinko commies!!) consider it to be abominable.
●Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
See above. Again.
●Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
●Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Bush. (he really cared about all those Iraqi’s dreams, or those of the soldiers he sent to die). Condi’s lies (“we couldn’t have imagined they would use planes to attack buildings”, even though we were conducting exercises that very same day where that very thing was simulated ummmm???)
●Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
●Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Wall Street. Bush. The appointees that show up here there and every where, with conflicts of interest all around. Again.
●Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
So when was the last time a liberal called a congressman a nigger? That seems a bit disrespectful to me. Or when did people shout “kill him” at a rally for a liberal candidate? How about this. Canadians are some of the most polite, respectful people in the world and they had to drop Ann Coulter’s speech because she was so over the top with her disrespect and terrible behavior.
No one should be disrespectful to anyone, and the person calling jerk was out of kine, but lets get real about these generalizations.
This was laughable.
This is fascinating. I am one of those horrible, awful, no-good, very bad lefty progressives (from California!!!). Except for the snarkiest, many posters seem thoughtful and sincere. But there is some radical mirroring going on here. Change a few words and this is similar to what I see on Huffpo and Alternet. At their extremes, both left and right are populated by those with an authoritarian, totalitarian mindset (ie: kiss-up-kick-down, victimhood, name-calling, blaming, “We’re special and they”re bums”). I will take you seriously when you begin to call out the hypocricy of conservatives who tell others how to live while breaking all the rules themselves, and when you disavow the misinformation, lies, fact-free-hysteria and racism of the wingnuts and tea partiers. Complaining about lack of empathy is the pot calling the kettle black. Wasn’t it Newt Gringrich who urged young conservatives to call liberals names and impugn their patriotism? Have conservatives renounced that?
(I meant to add…) As much as any other prominent conservative Gingrich embodies the personality style described in the posted description of the sociopath: glib & facile with facts, emotionally shallow, entitlement, grandiosity and especially willingness to exploit and betray others (wives # 1, 2, & 3).
Bleeding heart conservatives…
For me a liberal is a poor fellow with a considerable lack of self esteem. He can’t take a risk or make up his mind to actually do or start something. All is the fault of “them”. “They” are to give him a good job and make him care for the good of all.
If he sees someone with self confidence who goes his own way there’s just envy and hate.
So what to do?
Keep on going
Well said! It does appear that standing up, speaking out and fighting back against liberal bias in media and education has become absolutely necessary.
We can no longer hope that “reason” will prevail.
We can’t rely on rationality.
So we better rely on ourselves!
The appropriate response to Kitely would have been to ignore his email.
Maybe it’s as simple as Conservatives have a mental genetic mutation that allows their brains to comprehend productivity. Liberals are stuck with a primitive Hunter-Gatherer brain that only knows how to take what is already there, but is basically clueless about productivity. Consider the typical hunter-gatherer. If he’s hungry and there’s a bush with berries on it nearby, he eats them. If there are no berries, he goes looking for some. He doesn’t recognize the property rights of a farmer who planted a whole field full of berry bushes. Oh sure, he may recognize the threat of physical force and leave the farmer alone, but the primitive tribesman considers that unfair of the farmer. In his world view, the Universe provides what is needed, and it’s your job to take it. And the Universe only provides so much, so you’d better get yours before everyone else takes it all. For a hunter-gatherer, there’s no such thing as growing the pie – they don’t really think like that. If you get a bigger piece, then it must mean somebody got a smaller one.
When you think about how utterly clueless liberals seem to be about economic concepts, about the negative effects of high taxes or excessive regulation, it does seem like there’s a fundamental circuit missing in their brain. How could anyone not understand something so simple? Well, maybe there is a circuit missing. Maybe Conservatives are the farmers of the world, beneficiaries of a recent genetic adaptation that has only partially filtered through humanity, and Liberals are the primitives struggling along without the ability to comprehend the world any longer, increasingly angry at the farmers for not “sharing” their crops.
It’s probably a bogus theory, but it is nice to savor, considering the liberals typical belief that conservatives are a bunch of Neaderthanls.
I think this is slightly misconceived. There are undoubtedly many liberals with that affliction, who are therefore incapable of accepting that conservatives might have a valid point of view. But this isn’t uniform among “attack liberals.” Quite a few possess the vision of differential rectitude (Thomas Sowell) which, they believe, exempts them from having to grapple with morals and ideas other than their own.
In extreme cases, the “attack liberal” will dismiss the non-liberal as a morally aware creature. Consider the proponents of the notion that conservatives are “just born that way,” morally and incapably unable to ascend to the liberal altitude of enlightenment and insight. Not only is that a deplorable attitude; it’s also a contagious one…and ever more persons on the left of the political spectrum are adopting it. It makes them feel good about themselves and frees them from the need to deal with their opponents’ positions and arguments: two wins for the price of none.
I concur with JMH……
ad that we should bring such a view to debates to put their impudence into context.
When speaking with a liberal/socialist about political issues, after every point they make give them a hug and say: “I hear your voice”. Several of these hugs will build annoyance and result in pesky liberal/socialist becoming uncomfortable/freaking out/walking away. You win the day in a non-confrontational manner.
The left are fully 14 year old petulant perpetual adolescents. Unfortunately, we can’t ground them or send them to their rooms. They’re never going to grow up. We’re just going to have to survive them.
I aree that conservatives should not give in to the lefties, ever. If we give in on anything, it will not mollify them; they will have a new (and likely crazier) demand forthwith.
P.S. Delia, You should keep that profile of a sociopath handy. It makes sense that sociopaths like socialism.
RE #1/ Delia -
Nice site, Delia, “profile of a Liberal”, and it does a very good of sketch of liberals’ psychology (which I still believe that is soundly camped beyond normalness’ borders) – I’ll send the link as much as possible -
Now, my view is that, when facing such a pest like liberals, who simply are not equipped for reasoning, debating them, or trying to understand or find some (inexistent) underlying wisdom in their views, there simply is no good response to use other than harshness and deep scorn –
Is this an unproductive and damaging attitude?
At all – 3000 years of recorded incidents, from sand box conflicts to the abysmal history of the 20th century, where the un-resisted righteous intransigence (see commies and fascists), lead at the known disasters, shows where appeasement eventually leads -
Any liberal is, temperamentally, a Hitler or Stalin in wait – if not resisted, he/she, will add to the momentum of the totalitarian tide that is already engulfing us -
Think globally – act locally – blast liberals –
Always remember that liberals never forget or attenuate their views – they’ll always do the same, are indomitable like roaches – a mallet is what bring peace to an liberals-infested environment –
As an illustration, bellow is a link to a Daily Bruin (the UCLA paper) article that viciously prepares the Canadian atmosphere to Ann Coulter’s Wednesday event there –
http://www.dailybruin.com/articles/2010/3/29/dont-take-coulter-seriously/
And it’s the berry Bush’s fault.
Talk to the hand ’cause the face ain’t listening, left/libtards! Really, they damand common courtesy in order to screw you over but insist upon the same rules applying to them you’re unfair and “racist”– screw ‘em!
There does seem to be something in the comments above that reference some sort of mental or emotional imbalance.
I’ve been a aquainted with a (now retired) left wing prof since 1969. these days he remains active in teachers unions. His ‘cred’ includes causually remarking that the FBI was tapping his phone back then. Patently untrue. He was never important enough. Seems to think he needs to be, nowadays. In fact, at the time he got considerable criticism from his fellow travelers that he wasn’t doing enough.
It was all a big ego game back then. Everyone competed to be the most radical, the most cutting edge; “He’s socialist labor” or “She’s Maoist”, etc.
I imagine it still is. Like little kids seeing who can tell the biggest lie. Unfortunately, tghe mommy/daddy media character, which used to bring things back down to earth, is now a player also.
I think liberals are so angry these days because they know the game is up. They no longer have a monopoly on the media like they once did because conservatives can now make thier views known through either the INTERNET or FOX news. As the old saying goes, liberals can tolerate anything except anyone who disagrees with them. So it drives them nuts when people actually stand up to them and call them out. And what really, really, makes them go crazy is when you confront them with facts that proves your point. After you do that, the only thing they have left is to call you names and then you know you’ve won the argument.
I’ve found that the only way to deal with liberals is to ignore them. You will never sway their opinion, you will never prove that they are wrong (regardless of how much evidence you have), and you will never get them to agree with a conservative point of view. They make mules look positively cooperative. So I’ve found through bitter experience that the best thing to do is just ignore them.
That doesn’t mean, though, that you let them walk all over you, especially in the media. If they make a rediculous accusation (like “all people who oppose Obama are racists, attention Frank Rich), you call them out and point out what liars they are. But, by and large, let them rant, because what this nation learned after 2008 was that elections have consequences. The only thing conservatives should focus on right now is getting Obama and his minions out of office in 2010 and 2012. Let the left rant. That’s what they always do. We must focus like a laser beam on the upcoming elections and win. If we do that, then it will really make the left in this country go insane. Can’t wait.
Another often-overlooked factor is that a modern “liberal” education does not teach “old-fashioned” reasoning skills or methods. Everything is “relative”; there are no “hard facts”; “feelings” are of prime importance; and things are so because they “feel right”.
Now, add in the “progressive” belief that they are part of an intellectual “enlightened elite’” which is inherently smarter, wiser, more “compassionate”, and just naturally “better” than everyone else. The inevitable result is someone who is utterly convinced of their own “fitness to rule”, and thus concludes that anyone who disagrees with them is (as H. Beam Piper once put it, more or less) a vile scoundrel who is not merely wrong but evil into the bargain.
This is why it is essentially impossible to have a reasoned debate with such “super-liberals” on any subject. They simply are not using the same reasoning processes you are. And, in fact, consider your “reasoning” nothing more nor less than evidence of active evil.
You are in the position of someone trying to explain the Copernican/Keplerian theory of planetary motion to a Babylonian astronomer-priest. To him, those “wanderers” in the sky are not solid objects moving according to immutable laws of gravity. They are gods, moving back and forth at their whim, and using their movements, and waxings and wanings, to communicate commands to humans here on Earth. With the astronomer-priest himself, of course, interpreting their mystical desires for the faithful.
To such a mystic, your “reasoning” is not merely wrong, it is blasphemous. To say nothing of threatening his position of power in society. And he will not tolerate it- or you- for one minute.
If you are lucky, all you’ll get is tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. Which is a slight improvement over being stoned to death, burned at the stake, or simply being lynched by a mob stirred up by the priest for the purpose.
For real-world examples of such behavior, the recent AGW/Climategate business provides quite a few. Or, for that matter, you can read back through the posts of PM’s resident “progressives” on almost any subject. Most consider anyone who disagrees with them stupid, no matter what the facts say. Because to them, facts simply do not matter.
All that matters are their “feelings”. And, of course, power.
clear ether
eon
Lol. Whats this, wifebeaters remorse? Listen, you folks have been in Ann Coulter land for wee nigh 4 years, claiming that liberals are insane, evil, anti-american, cowards and without any cognitive abilities. Not once have I seen a respectful utterance by any rightwing talking head. Glenn Beck is up there every day calling us nazis and communists. And YOU expect us to treat YOU with civility?
Damn, but you guys crack me up. When you ally with open bigots like Pamela Geller, when you openly put Israel in front of the US, when you go out of your way to insult even moderates (RINO, anyone? Freedomfries anyone?) then expect to be treated like you act.
Progressives understand the mentality of conservatives perfectly. First, we know they are too kinds of conservatives–upper class and lower class. Upper class conservatives are filled with nothing but greed. They live in mansions and ride limos and rule their workers with brutality and contempt. They have not an ounce of compassion when the children of workers die because of starvation and lack of access to health care; they merely get angry if the funerals make the workers late. Even the destruction of our Mother Earth herself does nothing to quell their acquisitiveness. Bush, Cheney, and Rove are in this category.
Lower class conservatives are driven by hatred and fear of anybody who is different. Clutching their rifles they peer out their windows to see if any people of color are about, who the corporate media tells them are out to steal the crumbs the aforementioned upper class conservative leave them. Fear easily turns to hatred and violence fueled by media images of African-Americans and Mexicans rioting, and Muslims flying planes into buildings, which causes them to react with wanton aggression and ferocity unconstrained not only by compassion, but even by their own self-interest. Lower class conservatives seek the destruction of People of Color at the cost of their own advancement. It’s very sad, but true
Apostle of love left an ironic and very precise class analysis of how liberals think about conservatives. I wrote something somewhat related and also with a class analysis here: http://clarespark.com/2010/04/03/liberals-and-jewish-racism/. Liberals of course have no moral compass: they are interested in status, maintaining power, bringing “stability” to the “system”, and conforming to the opinions of other (faux) liberals, who, like themselves, may be grandchildren of immigrants. Hence their “pragmatism” and the self-love that they project onto the conservative/Republican enemy. What a shame that these pseudo-Keynesians co-opted the very good word “liberal” for themselves, instead of applying it to the theories of Adam Smith and his progeny.
I agree, I never understood why the term ‘liberal’ was attributed to democrats, it seemed so paradoxical. How can a party that wants nothing more than a government big enough to control us all be given a title meaning freedom? It didn’t make any sense, of course it was a surprising discovery in Socy 101, that liberalism is still used to describe conservative ideas, and the only reason we call progressives, liberals, is because FDR hijacked the title in the election against Hoover, saying basically that in order to retain freedom, the government needed to control the economy, so with that rationale, he said he would be the “new liberal”. Keeping in mind by the way that without WWII and the massive amount of money made by it, his Keynesian economic philosophy and policy would have made this great country a thing of the past. Do liberals really think that its a coincidence that the depression ended right when the war started? Or maybe they think just like the constitution, that history is irrelevant and as Michelle Obama puts it “history will be re-written” how exactly do you re-write history anyway? Isn’t history just that?
“For example, how many classes at school are teaching about the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, and Rand?”
This is a key part of the problem. Not enough Americans realize that the typical soft science credential from an Ivy League university is a piece of crap. How many voters were conned into believing Barack Obama received a superb education from Harvard and Columbia? The reality, of course, is that he is intellectually shallow and poorly read. Things were bad enough when Bill Buckley criticized Yale University in his first book published nearly sixty years ago. It got much worse once the affirmative action policies were instituted in the mid to late 1960s. Grade inflation became the norm. By no later than 1975—the white students also started receiving phony grades. We will know that the country might be saved once those who obtained a soft science degree from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, or any other such intellectual whorehouse are ashamed to publicly admit it. Sarah Palin, for instance, is far more knowledgeable concerning economics and the other challenges confronting our country than the vast majority of Ivy League graduates. She can easily talk down to Obama.
The Ivy leagues attract those who are ambitious. They are strongly tempted to stick their wet finger into the air to see which way the wind blows. These folks are primarily focused on only answering the following crucial question: Is this going to look good on my resume? The economic doctrines of Hayek, Friedman, and Rand are best in creating wealth for the majority of the citizenry. However, John Maynard Keynes provided the rationalizations necessary to justify power grabs by the “elites”. He essentially told them that they should be running society—and be amply rewarded for their altruistic efforts. This is why so many of the elites don’t pay all their taxes and violate other laws. We are supposed to cut them slack for their self-sacrifices on our behalf.
I’ve found psychologists to be just as annoying as liberals.
Both think that their you-know-what doesn’t stink.
Both are convinced that they’re smarter than everyone else.
Both start out by telling others whats wrong with the way they think.
Both need hearing aids.
Hence, I mind my own business and expect others to do the same.
But when some clown sets out to change my way of living they just stepped into a world that they never knew existed.
Where I come from we smack back. I may not win the battle but I guarantee it will be the worst day of the smacker’s life.
Although it took Doctor Smith awhile she finally got around to saying the same thing in her own way, “Conservatives shouldn’t back down on any of this, ever.”
Not to worry my dear, we won’t!
How to respond? Hit back hard with the truth and make it hurt. Never waste time trying to win the respect of libs/progressives — they have no respect.
Our goal is to leave them crying in the dirt, not to make friends with them (unless you like being stabbed in the back by “friends.”)
Defeat the Dems. And make them pay.
“The appropriate response to Kitely would have been to ignore his email.”
I don’t know, making him synonymous on the internet with “horse’s behind” seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
The words that come to mind to describe progressives are as self-loathing, slothenly, narcissists.
Progressives: That which you cannot debate, you denigrate; that which you cannot empathize, you dehumanize; that which you cannot create, you destroy (America); that which you cannot have, you steal; that which you cannot understand, you discredit; that which you cannot love, you hate; that which you cannot believe, you curse.
They are incapable of self-affirming love because they see themselves as evil, and thus must do everything in their powers to destroy what has been made by whom they perceive as similar to themselves-white Americans. Ergo, why they hate anything that white Americans have built, and our traditions and values, why they side with minorities and why they have made a Faustian deal with Islamic jihadists.
Your post is incredibly racist.
1. Religious persecution drove the Puritans to the United States. They wanted to “liberalize” religious practices in Europe to include their own.
2. There were “minorities” present in what became the U.S. prior to the arrival of Europeans.
3. White Americans built nothing, instead relying on slave labor, indentured servants and other “minorities” whom they dragged or otherwise induced (usually via lies) to emigrate here such as the Chinese.
4. Currently, the most socially conservative people are the very ones you denigrate: non-whites. The African American vote defeated gay marriage in California. Immigrants are the ones starting the small businesses that allegedly “drive” the economy. Female immigrants are at the top of the wealth building practices like saving and home buying.
As a liberal, I take issue with the bulk of the points I’ve read here. I’m not dumb, sociopathic, psychopathic, ignorant, mean, a bad listener or a finger pointer. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I’m not disrespectful if I’m not disrespected. What you have in these posts is what is commonly known as an echo chamber. You are all feeding on each others’ rage and anger which is ironic, since the gist of this blog post was about how liberals don’t want to seek information outside their liberal sphere.
What defines you? I don’t get that. Is it the social stuff that you hate, or is it merely the taxes? Because in my mind, I pay taxes so that I have roads to drive on, police to police them, a fire department to put out fires, public schools to send other peoples’ kids to… This talk of “over-regulation”… I don’t get that. What’s over-regulated? Is is food and drugs? Because I consider regulation of those industries to keep me safe. Is it the financial industry? My understanding of the mortgage meltdown was that under-regulation allowed unscrupulous actors to screw all of us out of billions. Give me specific examples of things that are just so beyond the pale that they just can’t be borne.
I have other questions. Were you upset when it was announced that the NSA had teamed up with cell phone providers to warrantlessly monitor phone calls? Does it upset you that back in … 2001, Dick Cheney headed up the Energy Task Force and that we, as Americans, still cannot get access to information that led to national energy policy? That lack of transparency bothers you or no? What about the finding that KBR is likely in violation of the False Claims Act, fraudulently overcharging the government for private security in Iraq?
These are the questions that lead me to question conservatives’ judgment.
@Jen DC – White Americans built nothing, … I’m not disrespectful …
One of these can’t be easily squared with the other.
This reality disconnect might explain some of your confusion regarding what actually caused the credit meltdown, as well as your need to parrot tired, worn-out talking points.
I have always appreciated Gilbert and Sullivan’s comment on this in Iolanthe:
I often think it’s comical – Fal, lal, la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!</quote.
More seriously, the reformed Marxist, later conservative intellectual associated with the National Review, James Burnham, addressed the phenomenon you're describing in his The Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New Rochelle: Arlington House 1964). I think you’d find the book, though dated, well worth your time to read.
Burnham describes liberalism as a syndrome and (in Chapter VI) says:
To liberals, many of these nineteen ideas [N.B. discussed in the preceding chapters] are likely to seem so obviously true that they have never bothered to put them into words; too obvious for fruitful discussion; not so much the private chattels of liberalism as the common ideas that all enlightened, educated, rational and decent men of the present age share, to the exclusion only of archaic types like U.S. Senators from the Deep South, along with extremists, fascists and crackpots. To most liberals, these ideas and beliefs do not seem to require proof or even careful examination; and in fact they have seldom been submitted to careful and systematic examination. They are not part of the content but of the form of current discussion, of Mr. [Robert Maynard] Hutchins’ [former president of the University of Chicago and then head of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a leading liberal light of 1940's through 1970's liberalism] universal dialogue; rational discussion of moot problems tends to assume them as a framework.
[Quoting from a 1962 memorandum to teachers and pupils in the DC schools in connection with an anti-Nazi, anti-racist project:] “In a democracy,” the memorandum explained, “everyone has the right to his own convictions and attitudes towards others, but … all attitudes and convictions must be based on truth and reason.”
Modern Liberals (“progressives”), then, essentially don’t think that anyone to their right is somehow fully human.
As two first steps, I’d say:
Don’t do business with them or their companies
Fire the ones who work for you
We’ll see how much more respectful and empathetic they get when they are running out of money.
As someone who started out way, way on the Left and gravitated toward the libertarian side of the spectrum, I can say that it’s an individual journey. Expecting the Left to take it en masse is naive.
Quite a few possess the vision of differential rectitude (Thomas Sowell) which, they believe, exempts them from having to grapple with morals and ideas other than their own.
Yes, once you are “on the side of the angels” simply by virtue of your beliefs, things that people of a less certain bent struggle with become non-issues.
I think viewing liberal intolerance as a “not their fault” colorblindness or some sort of cognitive defect is both naive and condescending. There are a variety of factors in play not the least of which is the leninist notion among many leftists that facts and principals are irrelevant — only results count. So demonizing and marginalizing opponents is an optimal — and very conscious strategy. Alinsky did not invent this — it has been in the kool aid for almost a century. Another aspect is simply the fact that having gained control of many of the cultural levers — the media, the academy — the left still rightly feels beleagered. The folks aren’t buying it and the growing desperation to ram through the agenda at all costs is making the totalitarian aspects of much leftist thinking all the more manifest.
Mark
I liked Jeff’s article a lot – it very thoughtfully exposed the kind of moral bankruptcy common on the left.
One thing the right should avoid is rudeness in return, as in Jason Mattera’s recent ambush of Sen. Franken. He manages to make Franken look reasonable. *sigh*
http://biggovernment.com/jmattera/2010/03/29/franken-unhinged-shutting-up-staffers-and-journalist/
Well, in one area at least, I think liberals are selfish. I saw a recent study that showed those who are vegetarians or buy only local produce or even own a Prius for environmental reasons (not just gas mileage) feel they have done their duty and thus can be selfish in other ways. I do believe this behavior can be applied to liberals in general. Another study a couple of years ago showed that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals do. Now I know why. Liberals vote for Democrats who do the charity work for them with taxpayer money.
fwiw, the label of “conservative” or “liberal” come after the person takes action. A lot of what Jeff has on his blog is predicated on people having read his writing. One result of this is that Jeff’s made it spectacularly easy for tendentious types to quote him out of context, which they do time and again.
More generally, I find that liberals tend to be sophmoric. They stop reading or researching a particular issue once they confirm their biases. Once they’ve been told that Global Warmening is “real” and they’ve looked at a graph, then the debate is over. Once they “see” that vaccinations are bad, the debate is over. Once they’ve been told Sarah Palin is too stupid to breathe without external cues, that’s it – she’s a moron.
As a result you end up with a gloopey mass of semi-informed, self-congratulatory opinion that is The Liberal Class. They’re the well defended id – to throw out some psychobabble.
Meanwhile, the yokels, who may have an instinctive disagreement with those liberal positions and the well-informed, who’ve done the additional research, tend to be in agreement.
This sets up the MSM/Andrew Sullivan/Charles Johnson Dream Scenario of only talking about the yokels as the “face of conservatism”.
What I’ve found is that I would agree with Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, et al … if I stopped where they did.
There is no point in trying to talk to the leftists/liberals/progressives anymore, it is like trying to talk to someone who has OD’d on Cocaine and is in full blown violent paranoid hallucination mode. The only thing you can do is try to protect the people and property around you and hope that they eventually come down from it or die. There is really nothing else that can be done.
As one noted blogger observed, it will take “An Army of Davids” to shine the light into The Darkness.
JMH, I have been flogging this Haidt piece around the comment threads of the blogoshpere since before the election, and I never thought of it like that. You may be right.
FWP, I can’t see how what you are saying is any different than what Haidt is saying.
Haidt in edge.org “What makes people vote Republican”
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge256.html
which I first heard about from NRO
and here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/
Haidt’s great contribution to blog repartee is the description of liberal argumentation method of “reject first, ask questions later!” You will be shocked how many times you see this.
This post confirms my theory that politics are entirely tribal — and that Dr. Helen is remarkably lacking in any kind of real introspection. I’ve been a blog reader since the very beginning of the format (one of the first Instapundit readers, Kaus, Josh Marshall, Sullivan, etc.) and as this new media developed I’ve been fascinated by the complete failure of everyone — on each side of the divide — to understand their opponents on even a fairly superficial level. Everything about our opponents becomes a cartoon: the left are Stalinists who don’t view conservatives as legitmate; the right are know-nothings who think that liberals are PC-laden fools. Obviously, the truth is that both the left and right feel empathy, and have good ideas from time to time, but view different problems facing the world as paramount. Neither side is willing to recognize that the other side ever has a legitimate point, but instead view everything as confirmation of their worst opinions about their opponents. The Bush/Obama situation is instructive. Both administrations did good things and dumb things. In fact, that’s the case about every administration — even the best ones. But try to get a conservative to say something nice about Obama, or a liberal to say something nice about Bush. My conservative friends are apoplectic about Obama (over a moderate health care bill almost identical to Mitt Romney’s in MA), just as my liberal friends were apoplectic about Bush (over foreign policy no different from Bill Clinton’s). In both cases the attitude is undeserved. Running a country like this is difficult, and we would all be better served by calming the hell down.
weird I just posted about Prof. Haidt yesterday. I like his idea of immaturity of the moral mind. A liberal may be intelligent and experienced, but still possess the moral compass of a teenager basically.
I’ve never studied psychology but it seems obvious there is some kind of immaturity or childishness at play. I think of it as intellectual laziness. The left can’t be bothered to face really tough questions. When confronted with harsh realities, they tend to just respond emotionally.
When I was a Psychiatric Aide, we were taught that a sociopath and a psychopath were the same thing. Sociopath was said to be a newer term that sounds a little less harsh.
JMH,
I’ve thought the same thing, but I like to call it ‘The Creed of Vultures and Maggots.’
Perhaps that’s a little overly dramatic.
In my experience, there’s a certain amount of liberals making a point of consciously not allowing themselves to be exposed to libertarian/conservative ideas. Back during the 2008 election cycle, I had a number of people drop me from their friends list because of my conservative/libertarian ideas. They simply didn’t want to read someone’s journal who wasn’t falling all over herself to worship the Obama. So it’s not simply a matter of not having the opportunity to be exposed to such ideas; it might well just as often be a situation where they refuse to be exposed to ideas which deviate from theirs at all.
Having been a liberal at one time, I can attest that there’s a certain smug moral superiority at play in the hearts of most leftists. I think this is their internal justification for insulating themselves from conservative/libertarian views. In their minds, the question then becomes: Why should I countenance “wrong” ideas? With the answer being that they shouldn’t, and therefore don’t.
I think also (and again, this comes from personal experience of being a leftie) that most liberals don’t have any solid, rational reasons for believing what they believe. It all comes down to feelings and what they think is right and fair. Because they think their attitudes are what’s right and fair, they require no other justification in their own minds for their beliefs. So when conservatives/libertarians try to argue with these people, they find it difficult to impossible, simply because to a liberal, the only thing that matters is what they think is right, not what the actual facts are. So you can offer evidence that, say, whenever the government decreases income tax rates, society experiences a net gain in weatlh creation; but you won’t change the liberal’s mind that lowering taxes helps everyone in differing ways, because all they care about is that wealthy individuals benefit more than the poor (since the wealthy pay more taxes), therefore making lower taxes unfair to the poor. It doesn’t matter that the poor could be better off in the long run, because they don’t look that far.
I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve had look at me askance or say, “Gee, you seem like such a nice person. How can you be a libertarian?” The assumption being that libertarians (and, by extension, conservatives) are mean, selfish, evil haters. So simply by existing (and being none of those things), I cause them mental and emotional duress. The sad thing is, they don’t understand how selfish and self-serving much of their beliefs are. Including their belief that conservatives/libertarians are selfish meanies.
Profile of the Sociopath… geez, it’s interesting how many of these items apply to Dr. Hopenchange.
What “Liberals” (although they ain’t really liberal) fear the most, is that they actually live in the real world. So they never want to look. Check out the baby seal debate.
What, liberals have “finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice”? I think not. From their ignoring the plight of millions dying under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and several others, to the continued popularity of “Che” T-shirts, the liberal left displays rather the opposite.
I think that what enables the left is a certain blockheaded arrogance, combined with a complete lack of moral compass. But, aside from an absolute self-centered self-regard, I have no idea what motivates them.
All good, important thoughts, and I appreciate your “pep talk” about but standing our ground in defense of the Shining City Upon a Hill.
Regarding what is taught in schools, even more important, perhaps, than specific works by such as Hayek, Friedman and Rand, students need to be taught how to think. As Dr. Sowell — who appears to be channeling you
— has written:
“Even if every conclusion with which students are indoctrinated were true, unless those students develop their own ability to weigh opposing arguments, these conclusions will become obsolete as new issues arise in the years ahead.
“These ‘educated’ people will have developed no ability to analyze opposing sides of issues. Students are getting half an education at inflated prices and learning only how to label, dismiss and demonize ideas that differ from what they have been led to believe. Their ‘educated’ ignorance is a danger to the future of this country.”
More thoughts on the subject here: http://bit.ly/9aUlPh
Can’t speak for Libertarians as you’re a different breed, but when you peel all the layers back and examine the core, the real difference I have noted as a Conservative Christian when debating with liberals – and it is incredibly consistent in nature – is a fundamental difference of opinion as our purpose on earth, and who is in control.
And from these roots, a liberal and I will invariably reach a difference of diametrically opposed belief and opinion about how to think and how to act concerning every avenue and aspect of life – from picking candidates and friends, to discretion, to defining what’s moral, to even managing finances.
And the only thing to be sure is that one of us must be wrong, because the differences could not be more glaring.
As one of very few conservative-libertarian professors in the humanities at a very liberal university, I have long held the second idea: many, if not most, of the liberals I work with have never been exposed to anything other than a caricature of liberal ideas. They read nothing except the NYT or the WP, for example, and they listen to NPR and CNN.
I also think that this is a great weakness among progressives that can be slowly exploited. Since the academics have not had to defend their ideas for several generations, they are weak.
Re: Joe Pike:
The appropriate response to Kitely would have been to ignore his email.
No actually, the proper response is to put Kitely’s name in a much larger font so it is very visible. Sort of like John Hancock
And yes I agree sociopath is a good description – maybe under Obamacare they could all get diagnosed and treated for their malady
Unfortunately all of this is our own fault. For the last forty years conservatives have allowed themselves to be pilloried as ignorant bigots and fools. Most of the time, when suffering from some lefty provocation, we just sit there with a silly nervous grin and chuckle uncomfortably while trying to look as inconspicuous as possible. We’re the ones that belive in argument and the interplay of ideas. But as someone recently pointed out, the goal of a liberal is not to win the arguments but to WIN period. We just saw this in the health-care debate. We have to ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE! Whenever some media outlet misrepresents a conservative point of view we have to come back as hard as we can.
Leftists believe in direct action.
Conservatives believe in perverse consequences to direct action.
Since most of the problems that respond well to direct action were solved long ago, today’s problems are mostly ones that respond perversely to direct action, and conservatives are mostly right.
Leftists see conservatives as the obstacle, not the consequences.
Hence the saying that if you’re twenty and not a liberal, you have no heart; if you’re forty and not a conservative, you have no brains.
#6 JMH, I think that is a very insightful, excellent idea. Thanks, I really liked your comment.
Why don’t they ever seem to get it about wealth creation? Remember Michelle Obama’s statement, “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” No comprehension of pie-making.
You could also extend this to nations. Russia is just as intent on aggressive territorial expansion as ever, with a tiny economy, while the United States has invented great new technologies, the whole time respecting that long border with Canada.
“Finally… it could be lack of education that allows the left to lack empathy. They are not exposed to right-leaning and libertarian ideas.”
This is it exactly. Students are taught from middle school on that US history = slavery, Native American repression, Japanese internment, hubristic foreign policy, and disparity between rich and poor. The “good guys” are FDR, LBJ, the Kennedys, & the 60s protesters who tried to change all that. And if you’re not for the good guys & their ideas, then you can only be against them because you are racist, xenophobic,selfish, & unempathetic. It’s a simplistic way of thinking: liberals are the good guys, conservatives are the bad guys. And nobody wants to be the bad guy.
We must begin to call the liberals out for depicting conservatives in this false way. For example, stop labeling every nutcase caught with a bomb and a gun as a “right wing” extremist. Right wingers don’t hate people who are different, let alone want to kill anybody.
http://ittbbb.blogtownhall.com/2009/07/14/how_to_argue_with_a_statist_liberal,_progressive_and_why_you_must.thtml
I have spent years trying to figure out why Liberals have no empthay for others.
I often say that empathy for a liberal is literally feeling for others..telling them what they should be thinking and feeling.
I have had limited success with the process outlined at the above link. I personally have difficulty with it as I tend to lecture. If you follow it however you do get a liberal who will stop and think before they say something stupid. Every one in a while they even refrain from saying it. Baby steps…
Maybe it is mostly because Goldstein is a blogger, but Brian Kiteley came out much the wore for wear over this. I believe Kitely wishes he had never brought up the topic. In addition, he has to admit Goldstein has turned out to be a pretty good writer. Kitely should take some pride in that. But, he won’t.
Maybe if you guys stop with the over the top smear campaigns against anyone or anything you don’t like, that might help. Also substituting maliciously widespread and idiotic right wing and/or GOP talking points for discussion, as well as that increasingly bizarre anti-science/anti-scientist attitude ain’t exactly helping your “don’t make fun of us” cause easier, either.
The Hunter-Gatherer theory doesn’t really work either. Most Hunter-Gatherers are very tuned into economic concepts, as it displays in their world. They know that if you kill all the female deer during mating season, there wont be any new deer next year. They know that an area with berry bushes is “wealth” that will produce “interest” in the form of berries every year, so pulling the bushes up is a bad idea. They look at the area around them, and know how to maximize the potential for it, given the tools they have. They might not know how to farm, but they know to keep their huts away from the animal trails and waterholes.
People on the left is way past all that. They are dreamers, without any connection to real world concepts. They sit home and make maps of the land, and then they are utterly confused when they go out and the world doesn’t look like their maps. They believe themselfes to be better and smarter than anyone else, so the maps they made must be correct. The problem therefore must be with the land, that doesn’t follow the map.
So they come up with one “Great Leap” after another, claiming that if the world would just behave the way it should according to their maps, everything will be great. And when everything comes tumbling down, they will once again scream out their swansong: “It was not my fault! My map is perfect! Noone could have known what would happen! It was just bad luck! I need another chance!”
We should ignore what they say or think about conservatives, and work very hard on unifying our selves, organizing ourselves, and taking every elected seat we can by making the simple cases that are ours to make:
Spend less than you tax
Tax less to help grow jobs
Compassion at the local, not national level.
Are the leftist’s tactics of sarcasm, ridicule, and name-calling a verbal form of the force they’re willing to use on opponents to gain their ends – an entrenched “ends justify the means”? It’s so pervasive among the left that those of them who would otherwise be appalled at using force will verbally assault opponents without realizing what they’re doing. I often point out that they are not making a logical argument but sheerly using intimidation, and they can get very flustered.
There’s also another dimension: a kind of self-delusion of moral righteousness mixed with the inability to grasp how to make a good argument on the subject. Here, I have to wonder if this is the long-term effect of the Dewey/Progressive school of education’s effect on thinking. They emphasize “democracy” – i.e mob rule disguised as “socialization” – over reasoning skills. After years of being subjected to this “method” in grade school, high school, and college, their minds are so mangled, they often can’t distinguish a reasoned argument from the mere pronouncement of an opinion. They’re taught to proudly state moral outrage in place of a logical sequence of thought, their “self-esteem” flattered in the process.
The late Sydney Hook, a follower of Dewey and self-described Social Democrat, wrote a least two books attacking the New Left as being intolerant even fascist. He coined the phrase “epithets of abuse” to describe how terms such as homophobe or racist were used as bludgeons to silence, without hearing or understanding, their opponents. While not necessarily in agreement with Conservatives, except in terms of free speech and civil discourse, he understood they were being demonized rather than engaged.
BTW, I worked in a high school for many years, and that’s how I know about the liberal slant in education. It’s hard to recall a conservative teacher, maybe one or two, and they were given a lot of grief by the other staff. Kids are praised with good grades and pats on the head for learning leftist point of view, and it works well in churning out liberals. No wonder Bill Ayers has devoted his life to education. It’s more influential than bombs.
very insightful. Another observation that I can share is that blinkered liberals always will tell you of injustice from their childhood. The cheerleaders were mean to them, they were fat, they were too short, too tall, their brother/sister/mother/father was mean, They will tell you of a very specific injustice inflicted on them by a specific individual or group. I know, I know, EVERYONE could fit into this category. The difference is that for the blinkered liberal, this is defining in their character. They will tell you about it, and you will know about it. It is important for them that you know how they were victimized. They will drop “the incident” into conversation early on, much the same way someone will tell you where they grew up, went to school or what their daddy did.
I’d go further to say that I think that they tell you about this as an excuse, so you can understand why they are the inadequate way they feel they are. But clearly, they were victims in their own mind.
And so they become bullies of sort and their actions are “justified” Jeeze. I could on and really break this down. But anyone interested in this should watch the original brown/eyes blue/eyes video. Make sure you watch the old one – done in the 50′s or 60′s. It gives great insight into how they tick.
Often, these liberals did well in school and it was their source of pride and power. The teachers and the adults approved and applauded them. And so they became sort of “brain bullies, believing that they were smarter, thus better than the other kids. And is why the “intellectually elite” liberals are frantic right now, twisting logic into ridiculous pretzels. Who are these people who dare threaten that they could have been wrong about things? It is not possible that they were wrong because they are smarter than you. They have staked their importance and their ego and their sense of pride on that fact!!
Oh well… I could go much deeper, but I won’t.
Anyway. Thanks Helen (and others)for more fantastic insight!!
There are people on both sides of the spectrum have who hold little empathy and are intolerant, after all politics involves millions of people. But, as a centrist and it’s my experience that the left has this affliction in spades. Helen Smith has some good ideas there, and I like her approach to the topic. I’d like to add that like the dog whisperer, political intercourse should be calm and assertive. There are the important political issue such as taxes, regulation, national defense, education and so forth. But there are minor issues, which the press emphasize, that are soap opera-like, melodramatic, including personality destruction which derail our attention from the important issues. These side dramas have to be commented upon, of course, but it’s critical not to dwell on them and be caught up in the emotional maelstrom. We must calmly steer political intercourse back on track of the important issues.
I didn’t notice this until after my post — smile….
The left, thus far, have been implacable and uncompromising in pursuit of their marxist vision. They have been patient and consistent, and use all means at their disposal, criminal, dishonest, or legal, to achieve their aims.
The right, including myself, have placed excessive trust in the power of rational thought and honesty when arguing with the left. The liberal mind is either that of an amoral leader, or a credulous follower. Neither one is amenable to changing their world view based on facts proving them wrong.
We should be implacable and uncompromising in our opposition to the left, while leaving the dishonesty as their unique defining characteristic. Compromise has been a losing tactic for us, and should be abandoned.
I forgot to mention: As a result of their determination and single-mindedness, the liberals have been far more successful that conservatives in attaining and keeping power–so much so that conservatism is almost a rebel movement against a media, academia, government bureaucracy, and elected government whom are all overwhelmingly liberal.
I tend to agree with #6 and disagree a bit with #7. I think there is a role for education. I attended college in the 1950s. I was unaware of the political beliefs of my professors. For a short while, I was an English major as I transitioned from engineering to medical school (there were no student loans for pre-med students), and my classes were about the details of the poems and plays and novels. There was no politics and any of us would have been astonished and uncomfortable if any had appeared. I became a Republican when I took an economics class as an elective. Today, the first two years of general ed classes, at least at the U of Arizona, is a steady diet of leftist indoctrination. Some of the history she was taught isn’t even accurate. For example, she was taught, and tested on, the idea that the “Silent Majority” of Nixon was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was no mention of the Vietnam War.
I do think there is a certain undercurrent of rebellion about leftist politics. A “wall” is to be knocked down because it is an artifact of the parent. I don’t even care that much about the politics of the left except as it affects their ignorance of basic economics. They are going to run us off the cliff. Sort of like the repeal of the Edict of Nantes that sent the Industrial Revolution to England with the Huguenots. Their ignorance of economics and their failure to teach it to our children are going to lead to hard times.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded—here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as ‘bad luck’.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
Re #6 JMH
“Maybe it’s as simple as Conservatives have a mental genetic mutation that allows their brains to comprehend productivity.”
Interesting concept but that couldn’t explain someone like me (and I’m prety sure I’m not the only one) who, in my youth, was extremely liberal minded. My attitudes and opinions changed (evolved is a word I like to use to describe it), but I’m pretty sure that my genetic code has remained unchanged.
I would also consider the possibility that it’s the liberals who have the genetic mutation.
I’ve been thinking lately that “liberalism” is more of a religion than any kind of pathology. As long as a “liberal” espouses the correct ideas, and believes in the correct things, a “liberal” will be accepted by the community. The unbeliever is shunned, but sins are forgiven within the community. I feel for Jeff because I’ve had the same kind of thing happen to me, I was shunned out of a group entirely unrelated to politics, because I answered “Bush” when I was asked who I was voting for.
As someone who regularly operates in a liberal bubble, I find that it has much to do with the group bully mentality. In a group, liberals will make the most outrageous comments, which serves two purposes. One, to ensure that their circle is intact and everyone agrees with their world view. This is certainly an assumption in an Ivy League college town. Second, if they are not sure of one’s political leanings or know and want to isolate this person, this serves to shut down the perceived opponent by making him/her feel outnumbered.
I recently was at a dinner party with another couple who are well aware of my political views. The wife deliberately drove the conversation towards contentious issues, I guess to see if I would take the bait. Since I had just met the hosts, I didn’t feel like engaging (it’s exhausting and a mostly useless enterprise) and steered the conversation blatantly elsewhere. I was really enjoying my wine and the child-free evening, and it often feels that arguing with the liberally minded is like arguing with children. They never give in until you send them to their rooms.
“The appropriate response to Kitely would have been to ignore his email.”
No, Jeff needed to confront and expose Kitley for his hypocrisy. Conservative fence-sitters and moderates need to see how so-called liberals are not truly liberal at all. For far too long we’ve ceded higher education to the “politically correct faction.”
Coming from a family dominated by liberals, my impression is that if a person is focused on resolving a problem, then that person is willing to consider opposing alternatives. However if that person is mostly concerned with upholding his/her personal feelings of moral authority, then not so much.
This is a profound and deeply rooted cultural dynamic which will take a generation of un-learning. cyc3 is right. There is no quick fix. This will take decades.
“I am not saying here that liberals are psychopaths, for this would be incorrect for the most part.”
Taken out of its context and standing alone, that is a great line – like channeling Dave Barry.
This is a terrific post — I hope you have time to expand on it because you have touched several strong points: colorblind, empathy, and “walls”.
For my part, with the many Liberals I know, their politics is something to be worked around. In most other ways, Liberals are like everyone else…but when it comes to political thinking they have a serious kink in the hose. And they resent, absolutely resent, anything other than the party line.
Don’t bother them. Don’t argue with them. Don’t mention the discussion you saw on Fox News the other night. Just try to get along with them in the other paths of life as best you can.
There are too many people in the vast middle who are waking up and wondering what is going on. Those are the people we need to be talking to. We’ve got from now until November.
IP Guy, you make a good point while completely missing the point. Yes, both sides do it. But then, anyone who writes THIS:
“This post confirms my theory that politics are entirely tribal — and that Dr. Helen is remarkably lacking in any kind of real introspection. I’ve been a blog reader since the very beginning of the format (one of the first Instapundit readers, Kaus, Josh Marshall, Sullivan, etc.) and as this new media developed I’ve been fascinated by the complete failure of everyone — on each side of the divide — to understand their opponents on even a fairly superficial level.”
……isn’t going to be soaking up any ideas but their own. Yep, buddy, amazing how you, and you alone, have it all figured out. Why do you even bother? I mean, you were here from the first! Must be hard that everyone has failed to grasp what only you alone can see.
Excellent commentary.
LOL I needed a chuckle today. Great piece of satire. Best line was “Finally, and my third possibility, is it could be lack of education that allows the left to lack empathy. They are not exposed to right-leaning and libertarian ideas.”
HAHAHA…. the irony
Everybody knows that “liberals” in higher education are far more different than liberals in the “real world”. That and the fact that conservative leaning media corporations have almost wall to wall coverage of right-leaning and libertarian ideas. I mean how else do you explain Liz Cheney’s media career defending her Dad’s policies. Then they have the little token liberal on so they can claim balance.
Again thanks for the laugh….
That self diagnosis seems to be flawed and ironic to me. I never noticed that “liberals” were in any rush to knock down the Berlin Wall. It took Ronald Reagan to call for that.
Lack of empathy? Try conceited and bigoted. They should suffer consequences. The most just would be to eject them from the public trough.
The left isn’t, for the most part, an ideology. Ideology would require some degree of consistent behavior and belief and the left is never consistent. It’s a “lifestyle choice” that’s been sold to millions who otherwise would have to try to make something of themselves other than “good soldiers” in the leftist army of fools. As leftist troops, they’re promised that they can help remake the whole country into one big college campus where everyone is granted rights and no one has responsibilities. Other than the few hours of “work” required of them, they can spend the vast majority of their time socializing and supporting the “right” causes. Everything they need is included in their tuition, and if their parents can’t afford tuition, there are endless grants and “loans” to enable them to stay in the cloistered world they have a “right” to living in. That’s what they’re really seeking to create, one big leftist campus where just as they dom’t notice the grounds keepers and janitors, they needn’t notice “those” people who disagree with their view of an ideal fantasyland future.
The fact is they have no problem understanding another point of view, don’t want to be bothered with opposing points of view. They idolize zealots who not only refuse to listen but in fact attack those who disagree with them. Lefties are all trying like hell to be as cool and self-assured as the top of the hill lefties who have staffs to worship them and legal staffs to keep them out of trouble when they do something anyone else would be arrested for. They’re convinced that the first step in becoming a privileged and pampered person is to be rude, abrasive, and above all, so “self-assured” that you don’t even lower yourself to listening to “them”.
Regards
> There may be no way to get the “other side” to understand our views, for they may not have the capacity to do so.
We have to take the attitude that Christian apologists (notably those who practice presuppositional apologetics) take when they debate atheists. They take it as a given that they’re not going to convince their adversaries. “That’s God’s job,” they say, “We’re not trying to open minds, but to shut mouths.”
If you figure about a third of the electorate are true-believing libs, and another third are true-believing conservatives or libertarians, that leaves another third in the middle, the “undecideds”, the “independents.” They may not have a coherent philosophy at all, but they are the ones who decide elections. We need to convince them, not the libs.
Or option 4: Liberals are just ignorant. They’re ignorant of history. They’re ignorant of economics. They’re ignorant of how the world works. They’re ignorant on so many levels.
As the late great Will Rogers said so long ago, “Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.”
Ignorance can be cured, but first you have to admit you’re ignorant and then take actions to overcome it. Unfortunately, liberals are so convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority. They can’t admit their ignorance so they remain ignorant.
Frankly, my patience for suffering fools is almost completely gone.
Hi everyone…I’d like to say that not all liberals are rude and unwilling to open their minds to conservative ideals. I am a moderate liberal, a hard worker, and a good citizen. I come from a conservative family, and I am able to discuss my political beliefs with them without any problem. I understand and agree with a lot of what they say about the benefits of smaller government. I think that political debate gets so heated because political beliefs are generally so close to the core of who we are as people. When someone disagrees with you politically, for a lot of people that is a personal affront to who they are as a person. So people get heated about it. It’s the nature of the beast, but certainly not specific to liberals. Lots of conservatives do as well! Basically, I think we all need to understand that at the core of conservatism and liberalism is just a difference in what we believe the role of the government should be. Thats it. It doesn’t help to put down liberals and liken them to psychopaths, why don’t you just make your point? I think there are a lot of good conservative people, and maybe, just maybe, if you wrote an article about what you believe and why you believe it you’d have a lot more open liberal ears.
I have seen this attitude from all sorts of political adherents. It is no more specific to liberals than it is to conservatives. True Believers (cf. Eric Hoffer) consider their monomania a virtue, and there is little that can be done to change them. If the focus of their belief system collapses, they are much more likely to seek a new focus than they are to become tolerant and reasonable.
Here are a couple of my favorite quotations that apply:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” (Emerson)
“We do not display greatness by going to one extreme, but in touching both at once, and filling all the intervening space.” (Pascal)
Why are liberals unable to sympathize with conservatives?
When you understand the relentless indoctrination to which the typical Western Leftist is exposed from the moment they tune into Sesame Street, it isn’t difficult to understand why they’re unable to relate to conservative ideals.
First, you’re taught to hate any ideas other than those espoused by the Left.
Name a Republican or conservative, in the past 50 years, who hasn’t been portrayed in the US media sphere as either a dangerous racist, a dangerous religious fanatic, or a dangerous warmonger.
Second, you’re taught that conservatives are ridiculous, stupid people.
Fuddering Ford…Doddering Reagan…Lapdog Bush…Goofy Quayle…Dangerous Dole…Bushitler…Dingbat Palin…Mad-Dog McCain…Teabaggers.
This is how the average Leftist views conservatives. But more importantly, the average Leftist knows that this is how his Leftist friends view conservatives. As such, how willing are they are going to be to risk their entire social framework by allowing dangerous ideas to seep into their conscience?
Finally, the Left has a built in mechanism for dismissing outright ideas that don’t conform with their own: the notion that anyone who doesn’t see the wisdom in Leftist ideology is a victim of “false consciousness”.
Put it all together, et voila!
Online, trying to argue civilly with the average Leftist is an utter waste of time…better to illustrate their ignorance forcefully and mercilessly. Remember: the Leftist isn’t your audience…the fence-sitter is. Clearly demonstrate the Left’s shameful ignorance, and the fence-sitter, in turn, will be ashamed to be associated with it.
In a more relaxed, face-to-face talk, I’ve found the following to be very effective: instead of arguing with the Leftist about his/her views on this subject or that, have he/she explain how they came to hold their views on the subject.
They invariably start off spouting platitudes and cliches (e.g., “I believe in the right to privacy for the mother” or “War is just wrong. Period!”). These are easily challenged (e.g., “Ok, but do you believe that the human being growing inside the mother has the right to life?” or “Ok, but do you believe that the Revolutionary War was wrong? WW1? WW2?”) and you’ll quickly find that they begin to struggle with articulating reasons why they support/oppose a particular position. Continue you to press them on what underlies their support/opposition (e.g., “How have you come to that conclusion?”…”What have you read that forms your views on this?”…”What is the economic/historical/philosophical/legal standing for your views on this?”) and watch the struggle intesify.
We, of course, know why they’re struggling. Because 90% of the time, they’ve simply been indoctrinated to hold those views and have never really given them any serious thought or study. And that is the entire point: to give them a glimpse into that fact. And most of the time, that’s enough. It’s very easy to defend your ideas from external attack…it’s a very different thing to defend them from internal doubts. And trust me: as a once-recovering Leftist, I can attest to the long-term effects those doubts can have
Really, this can all be answered in 15 seconds flat with a psychological principle that I’m honestly kind of stunned that Dr. Helen overlooked:
The average person (unless a master at manipulation) will attempt to influence you in the manner that most effectively influences them.
I am someone ruled by logic and reason. When I attempt to influence the decision of someone I don’t know, I use logic and reason to present my arguments.
So what can we deduce from the way liberals argue? They are driven by shame, guilt, and other negative emotions that they feel come to them if they don’t make the “right” choice. Therefore, liberals attempt to shame and guilt those making something-other-than-the-right choice to show them how “bad” they are for not agreeing with the “right” decision to make.
Because liberals use the above as their decision making process for political ideas, they end up having a large disconnect with reality which only reinforces the decision-making process.
A note to anyone who will disagree: Yes this is simplified. Yes it is quite possible for someone to use more than one decision method for different areas (e.g. a man who’s logical in business, but emotionally driven towards women… a common example).
A note to any liberals reading this: How DARE you reject the very basis of scientific method that has BUILT the very fundamentals of the civilization you enjoy! Can’t you see how neglected and unloved it feels from your dismissal of logic and reason? How can you be so callous? Why can’t you just be like the rest of us and use logic for once??
I think you could replace liberal and conservative in this article with any other two groups with opposing worldviews and it would work just as well. Not understanding the other’s viewpoint isn’t a liberal or a conservative thing, it’s a human thing.
Liberal already think they understand Conservatives, so they don’t see the need to think deeper. They think we are homophobic, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, and greedy. If you correspond with a liberal on a subject, note how rarely they ask you a question and how few of your many questions, they actually answer.
“For an example of this, notice how Eric Cantor can have his office shot at and it is played down with all kinds of excuses” Maybe liberals have a hard time disusing issues with you because you chose to make up facts and distort the truth. Lets look at what really happened, the police report said it was a random bullet into an office not even used by Cantor. I think he had every right to initially assume the act was aimed at him, but the police report showed later that it was random. The bullet did not even go through the window. So those so called “excuses” or facts as we like to call them, shows that the incident was not just dismissed. I take it very seriously that when people threaten anyone from any party, clearly that is not the way of politics. It seems to me that the far right and the far left are very similar, in that neither side is willing to look at the other persons point of view. I think of myself as being in the center and I am happy to hear what other people say. If anyone here is familiar with John Stewart Mill, then you know open marketplace of ideas is important for any society.
To me, the liberal lack of empathy boils down to their perceived morally superiortiy compared to the non-liberal.
For most liberals, governmemntal action is the only answer to any social ills or inequity, real or imagined. The liberal answer is always more programs, more agencies, more regulations and regulators, more spending, more taxes, more fees, etc. Thus anyone who disaggrees with the liberals’ “morally superior” policies are not just wrong on policy but are morally wrong as well. Because many liberals see their opponents as morally wrong, they desevre no consideration, ever.
To summarize, most conservatives/libertarians view liberals as wrong and foolish. Most liberals view the other side as wrong and evil. This is why the right can show empathy to the left and not vice versa.
I have long felt that liberals are blissfully ignorant of their biases because they live in an echo chamber. My experience is that the more outspoken the liberal, the more ignorant they are, no matter what their credentials. Given the preponderance of liberal control of media, academy and government, it is impossible for conservatives to live in an echo chamber.
However, the key is to use the liberals as foils. Don’t try to understand them or change them. Use them to bring the participatory middle, the “undecideds”/bandwagon-followers, to our side. Think strategically, not tactically.
Perhaps calling liberals “unmoral and psychopath” would make them weary of the conservative point of view, especially the views of this author. I feel, being that I am a liberal, that I am extremely empathetic to infinite points of view.
However, the facts are these: most liberals are opposed to wars, injustice towards minorities, and they care for the well being of ALL citizens of the US as well as the whole world. Some conservatives do not. So in turn, liberals feel that based on the facts that conservatives are not moral at all, not if they are willing to kill our citizens and other citizens from around the world.
The authors definition of empathy is intolerable and biased. However, I apologize for liberals laughing at conservatives, but when a person is educated on all the facts, then it becomes perversely funny when an uneducated person tries to create ideas through fiction.
I work in local government surrounded by liberals. Learning to speak up has been a slow and conscious effort. It’s required reading and reflection to clarify core values. It’s also required the development of courage. Not so gifted in powers of logic and verbal argument, I’ve learned that framing comments or challenges as questions is an effective way to enter discussions and have an influence.
Maybe all y’all conservatives can start throwing more bricks through windows. Very good way to get things done don’t ya think?
We shove it back in their faces. If you are a business owner and are making changes due to Obama’s policies, note it on your billing page. Post the inconsistencies on your FB pages or blogs or whatever, wear your t-shirts, film their idiocy and put it up on YouTube, FB, here, whatever. Make it as easy as possible for “regular” folks to get the information so they can finally see for themselves how evil these people are.
I’m not so sure about the Education thing.
I have always credited the public school system for making me a conservative.
When I was in Grade School I had trouble with bullies. They would pick on me during recess. So, being a diligent student I would report their actions to teachers and playground monitors.
What did I hear?
“Why don’t you let John, worry about John?”
“Don’t you think you bring this on yourself?”
“Ignore them, they’ll grow tired of it.”
First of all, I was able to realize that I was worrying about John when I reported abuse by bullies. Second, I tried to steer clear of them as much as possible and they looked me up, so NO, I didn’t think I brought it on myself, and finally, Ignoring them made them intensify until I could no longer ignore them.
So then I took it upon myself to do something about them. Oh boy, what a response that evoked.
All the trouble the bullies never got into for what they did, I suddenly found myself in for the crime of defending myself. Now I found myself subject to the biggest lie the public school system ever perpetrated;
“It takes two to fight!”
“One not fighting back will still get the snot kicked out of him,” I answered. That little piece of “Back Talk” earned me a three day suspension, and a stern note to my parents.
It was in the spring of my fifth grade year that a sudden realization hit me. For all their talk, the teachers and administrators weren’t going to do anything about the bullies. They’d accepted them for who they are and they saw me as the only one whose actions they could influence. (Similar to how Obozo treats our allies and enemies.)
I also realized that the only way I was going to be free of bullies was to insure that they were afraid of me. They were already afraid of teachers and playground monitors, that’s why they always did their thing when no one was watching. But if I made them afraid of me, then I’d always be watching.
One day on the playground I snapped, I used a softball bat on the bullies and hurt them all pretty bad. I was suspended for two weeks and forbidden from playing Softball for the remaining years I was at that school.
And it was worth it.
But I learned a lot about liberalism during those days, lessons I’ve never forgotten.
jd
“If anyone here is familiar with John Stewart Mill, then you know open marketplace of ideas is important for any society.”
Once had a leftist react to that idea with a derisive snort: “is EVERYTHING a marketplace to you people”?
(And Brian, you’re wrong about the Cantor story.)
Tex Taylor said, “Can’t speak for Libertarians as you’re a different breed.”
I find such honesty refreshing, and it touches on a problem I noticed with Haidt. Libertarians do not exist, as they don’t fit his general theory. So like many liberals, he simply ignores them. (But that does not work in his case, for their existence illustrates flaws in his methodology.)
Conservatives — even those who disagree with libertarianism — are generally more respectful of libertarians than are leftists, for the simple fact that they acknowledge their existence.
As to “strategies for conservatives or libertarians in dealing with the left’s disrespect and lack of empathy,” bless you for mentioning libertarians! It has long bothered me to be regarded simply as a “conservative” by leftists who make assumptions and put words in my mouth (and I agree that arguing with them is a waste of time), but what hurts almost as much is to be criticized by conservatives for not being conservative enough — as if I am betraying an ideological characterization I never embraced. What worries me about Haidt is to see libertarians simply being defined out of the equation entirely. I took his test, and it showed that I did not fit either his liberal or conservative stereotypes. Are libertarians outliers?
I should add that while it is a waste of time to argue with liberals if the goal is winning them over, it is not necessarily a waste of time if there is a larger audience observing. The more obnoxious the leftists are, the more they create a backlash which draws in those who were referred to by Jed Skillman as “people in the vast middle who are waking up and wondering what is going on.”
Compare typical “liberal” behavior with the diagnostics for <a href="http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd"Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
The thing is though, we shouldn’t give them a pass and say, “It’s not their fault.” They are arrogant, blasphemous, liars, covetous, sexually immoral and complicit in murder. This is, fundamentally, wrong, dare I say, evil. They are completely at fault for going astray and deluding themselves with perverse ideas and then calling themselves wise. Greater still is the fault in those who led them astray.
Hey hawkeyepapyrus #91, sorry we can’t do that because we’re dodging all the bullets being fired by you guys through Eric Cantor’s office window. And, by the way, when morons like you show up and a G-8 summit or a Global Warming conference like you did in Copenhagen, it’s a shame so many of you have to be arrested for rioting, breaking windows, and injuring police with rocks and bottles. Yep, “peaceful” protest must be in your DNA, right? What a jerk.
The other thing that their selective obliviousness blinds them to is the fact that wealth can be destroyed. They actually believe that wealth is immutable like matter and energy- that it can be neither created nor destroyed. This blinds them utterly to the destructive nature of their desires.
The hard left sort of feels like many of you folks. Very upset because “their guy(s)..kerry, bush etc. messed up so bad that the other people got in. Clinton let the left down and so did Congress and Obama with the recent health care legislation. The right did not want health care reform and the left never got their government (single payer) takeover. However, the middle right of center wing is now satisfied with the agenda, which should at least guarantee this president a second term. The same old story, the middle usually survives while the fringes get burned by the flames. On the other hand, just think if one of the loony’s on the right, or the far left..really ever did get in…
Would are country survive it? I think so..dont you?
Ah yes, the science of proving your enemies are crazy. Anyone can play.
**************
Cut and pasted from the linked Goldstein post:
His position seems to be that allowing Darleen’s comic to stand — the President raping lady liberty “is not a political cartoon and you know it,” he told me — was sick and irresponsible, the abetting of a civil evil that is far worse than, say, drawing Bush as Hitler, or insinuating an American President manufactured a war and sent men and woman off to die so he could exand his portfolio.
Goldstein posted a cartoon that shows Obama walking away smugly from a rape of Lady Liberty that he just committed–and telling her he’ll return with friends. Goldstein’s disgusting post is central to his quarrel with his former professor, yet Helen did not mention it. Is she ignoring inconvenient data? She certainly notices hate by the Left.
Well, look no further than PJM’s Rosenbaum, either as an archetype, or a clever send up of the archetype. Reader response appears not to be following your advice, Dr. Helen.
Regarding your hypotheses: As amusing as your first is to me, particularly so as an academic, I find more explanatory power in options two and three – from experience, that is.
As a tie-in, I would add simple intellectual laziness. An example: A European colleague once proudly extolled the renunciation of his Catholic christening, adding as an exclamation point that his religion was the social democratic party of his country. I had no reason to doubt it. When you turn politics into religion, there is less need for critical thought, as some of the more tawdry chapters in the history of religious thought has shown
I agree with several other commentators that this article offers an explanation for the intollerance of the progressive mindset and the lefts difficulty with associating its ideology with everyday reality. The recent passage of Obamacare offers some examples of the disconnect:
1. The bill taxes medical device manufacturers while claiming that the cost of technology will be brought under control by the legislation. This is an economic nonsequitor.
2. The legislation is touted to lower premiums but independent analysis shows that in fact premiums on the younger portion of the private sector will increase by 17% when the “benefits” kick in in 2014.
3. There is no economic analysis that shows that the future levels of entitlement payout can be sustained by future revenue collections,even with substantially higher taxes, and Obamacare simply accelerates the inevitable default. Faced with this fact, progressives still believe that taxes on the middleclass won’t need to go up and future benefits won’t need to be cut. There is a word for this: delusion.
Psychopathic or sociopathic, take your pick. I agree that the lefts mindset can not, in most cases, be altered. The task therefore becomes preventing them from gaming the system (election fraud, illegal immigrant amnesty), while we wait for the upcoming elections to occur. Thereafter, we need to promote traditional American capitalist entrepenurial values, while educating our future generations on the vision of the founders.The progressives find this an abhorent threat. The incorrectness of their ideology simply must be overwhelmed by the majority.
This process is underway now. The progressives are going to pay a dear price for their legislative and executive excess at the ballot box in November, it is inevitable. The majority is about to correct the excess.
Could it be the reverse (that an inability to empathize or below average levels of empathic capacity) produces a liberal?
Some liberals (aka Leftists) I know are the kind of people who are classic accommodators, herd followers, people-pleasers, media zombies. They were bombarded with Leftist propaganda since they were very young and feel self-righteous about following the only thing they have ever known (reason #3) much like a fundamentalist Muslim does. They do not have the courage, to think differently, to challenge their own dogma, to buck the status quo. They think themselves as “moderates” because they have always tried to position themselves safely to the middle ground so as to feel “balanced”, no realizing that the center of gravity is always shifting to the Left, dragging them down the hellhole of delusion and statism.
The irony of Leftists’ intellectual superiority complex is that their “theories” are nothing more than warmed-over collectivism, which is one of the most disproven, if not the most disproven, social theories in existence. Add in a dash of identity politics and that’s what the Left is serving up.
Individualism with voluntary collective action works, straight-up collectivism doesn’t.
I also think a lot of it is the “hope spring eternal” aspect of human nature, where the Left thinks that “this time” collectivism will work. Well, each “this time” it’s been tried, it hasn’t.
94. Rob Crawford: I am not wrong about Cantor story please research before making wrong statements, as everyone is accusing liberals of doing. see link. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/police-on-cantor-incident-were-calling-it-random-gunfire.php
I am a liberal, and I am bring up Mill so now what. Every time I have had a real discussion with a conservative it is a joke because they dismiss any factual information I present to them. There is never enough facts for them, they dismiss everything as conspiracy or what not. You people are just as bad as the far left. I will stick with the center.
I love it that this idiot tried to get is name off a sub-page of a web site and now his name is all over the Internet, looking like a complete fool, for eternity!
The Internet spells the end of any chance the left had to dominate society. Leftist policies can only take hold by tricking the people or being forced on the people by a totalitarian state. People don’t want tiny death-trap cars, or bicycling in the ran to work, or tiny houses, or more taxes, or government telling them which doctor to go to. They want freedom.
The power of the media to trick us is over! Now I’m waiting for Hollywood to be replaced by people who make movies we want to see, like heroic win the war movies.
Helen…what about those of us who WERE liberal and are now strong conservatives. I was exposed to ‘right’ ideas when I was younger but also grew up in public schools. Even as a Christian I leaned left through to my early 20s. It wasn’t until I started working in the private sector (as opposed to my first jobs with government) and meeting my now husband that I started changing my points of view. So, I clearly wasn’t on the “psychopath” track with no ability to empathize or relate to conservatives. Otherwise I never would have gone out with my now hubby.
I think it’s dangerous to think that once a liberal always a liberal. I realize that many lefties refuse to listen to other ideas that don’t reflect their world view, but even the staunchest have sometimes seen the light (i.e. Neo NeoCon the blogger).
Regarding Bethany’s comment: “I think that political debate gets so heated because political beliefs are generally so close to the core of who we are as people.”
I would add that it gets so heated because almost all proposed policies violate someone’s rights.
Hey Doc – seems I recall covering this exact ground a while back.
And YOU were part of the initial inspiration!
The reason for the left’s inability to sympathize is pretty glaringly obvious – at least based on Haidt’s research. Their moral framework is not only incompatible with the comprehensive intuitive ethics of most conservatives, it’s incompatible with a sustainable society!
p.s. there’s one strategy for conservatives or libertarians in dealing with the left’s disrespect and lack of empathy that kills two birds with one stone, as it’s also a critical element of preventing them from destroying our way of life: STOP COMPROMISING WITH THEM.
Rachel, I hardly believe that I have everything figured out. Quite the contrary — I believe there is room for substantive disagreement on a variety of different topics, and am glad to be proven wrong. I am willing, however, to state with some degree of confidence that folks who fail to recognize the essentially tribal nature of political viewpoints are basically inviting themselves to draw conclusions of “bad faith” about their opponents. The fact that so many of my most conservative friends believe that Barack Obama is a genuinely bad guy, and that so many of my liberal friends believe that George Bush is a genuinely bad guy, demonstrates nothing more than a willingness to ignore a great deal of contrary evidence because it is easier to fight against a straw man version of your political opponent than a real one. I’m a libertarian, former editor of a college conservative newspaper, and I have learned that both sides think that their opponents are contemptuous — and both sides are correct. The reason that we all hate each other is because we all lack empathy — and imagining that it is all on one side or another is silly and counterproductive. Instead, folks of good conscience should be trying to build bridges. I’m not holding my breath.
Unfortunately, most conservatives speak in hushed tones because of fear of being shut out. Conservatives are most definitely ‘punished’ when debating supposed free range of ideas. I belong to a “skeptic” group which consists of atheists/agnostics and probably 99% are liberals. I mean rabid liberals. They will mock Republicans as what they see as representative of the “Christian right” and cannot see that it can be anything else. When an opposing view is presented or discussed, even speaking simply fiscally (as I’m not opposed to gay marraige-but vote Republican because gay people being married isn’t as important as the collapse of our economy) it’s almost like a group of zombies just realized a real live human is in their midst and will attack with a vengeance.
I do not know what to do about it and usually just keep my mouth shut. There are a few who know my views and respect me (in spite of them?) but those people are few and far between. Most actually have went to the ridiculous meme of “If you oppose healthcare you are a racist and want everyone except white people to die.” To point out the ridiculousness of that concept will bring out the fangs for sure. Because of course, ‘only a racist themself would defend racists!’ Or so it seems in their mind.
Thank you for demonstrating my point from #45.
Ironic in that you would extol the virtues of Europe as it slowly crawls to irrelevance and decay, which so aptly explains why I believe you to have the proper conclusion ass backwards.
When you substitute politics for pure religion and/or substitute man as the highest order of rule, law, and thought, what you are left with is each man living by his own flavor of virtue, always leading to moral relativity, which eventually leads to a vacuum of self-indulgence and depravity accompanied by chaos.
And if history has taught us anything, it is that the vacuum will be filled by those who deem themselves worthy, promising a restoration of order for the masses.
And it always ends badly.
S. Clark,
It may have been me reading “ass backwards” your own commentary. If so, I owe you an apology and a promise that I won’t read so quickly next time, proving the shortcomings of “assume”.
Speaking as a liberal, I don’t see much evidence here of conservatives’ empathy for liberals either. For years I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh lie about me and my friends, our hopes and motivations; I’ve read people on conservative websites talk about how we aren’t “real” Americans; I’ve heard Sarah Palin divide the country into “real” America (versus, presumably, where I live); and I hear conservatives now talk about “we the People” who are opposed to health care (what about those of us who voted for Obama in large part so he could reform health care–what are we?). And now you want to whine about how we don’t understand you??? Plank, eye, etc.
gs,
You liberals are so predictable
Reject first: “Goldstein’s disgusting post is central to his quarrel with his former professor, yet Helen did not mention it.”
ask rhetorical question later: “Is she ignoring inconvenient data?”
I am sorry, but I just don’t get how depicting Obama as a rapist is out of bounds, but depicting Bush as a genocidal… genocidal, think about that word, massive rape was one of the least of Hitler’s crimes, maker of aggressive war on the largest scale in history, is not.
One is fair, which it is, we have free speech, the other is fair.
Ann Coulter needs to write a new book: “Violence: how the intellectually bankrupt Left really furthers its agenda”.
“Conservatives shouldn’t back down on any of this, ever. For it is persistence and consistency that will eventually win the day. The left did it for decades and it clearly works. The left’s advantage has been that the right caves and is so worried about appearing moral that they back down, conceding any power. The right’s advantage is that we understand how the other side thinks, while they do not. Keep this in mind when you think about strategies to keep our liberties and freedoms intact.”
This is especially important because the Left will ALWAYS seek to use the Right’s moral code against them. You only need to look to what they are doing in the past few weeks. When the Left was throwing around accusations of racism and homophobia, they weren’t seeking to rile up the Left, which the mere existence of conservatives already does. No, what they were looking to do is get Republicans and other conservatives to condemn the Tea Partiers and they themselves delegitimize the Tea Party movement, thus depriving themselves of oxygen for the upcoming elections. However, the Left’s blatant did not work as intended: in this day and age of cameras, internet, cable news and radio, the Left’s slur did not stick and the movement is even stronger and not only that, but Obamacare has gotten even more unpopular. I do believe we are in the last throes of Progressivism. It’ll be years before Progressivism dies, but now that an important weapon has been taken away from them – the dissemination of information – it’ll be much sooner than expected.
To Mojo:
Your statement that, “… the facts are these: most liberals are opposed to wars, injustice towards minorities, and they care for the well being of ALL citizens of the US as well as the whole world…” belies my life experiences.
For example, in the 1960’s and 70’s I watched liberals systematically destroy an entire industry and way of life when they decided that cutting timber in Northern California for use by their fellow Americans was somehow harming the planet. This despite the fact that timber is a renewable resource. These liberals, mostly interlopers from the big cities to the south, invaded the northstate and took a thriving economy that once housed and fed five generations of proud, self-reliant Americans and turned it into an economic wasteland where the sons and daughters of lumberjacks now must either subsist on the sale of trinkets and services to tourists; or leave to find employment in the big cities they detest. Today, the mill-towns and villages of the north state no longer throb with the life of hard-working Americans. Today they wear the sad, pathetic look of ghost towns to be.
Meanwhile the great Northern California forest that for generations served as the self-sustaining backbone of the regional economy and was once scientifically managed for both maximum timber production and wildlife enhancement has all but been abandoned and degenerates into an overgrown, overcrowded massive fuel dump capable of supporting only a fraction of the wildlife it once housed as it awaits the next massive, inevitable, wildfire.
Having had their way with the timber industry, these same liberals, who “care for the well-being of ALL citizens of the US…” (and who actually think of themselves as “environmentalists”) , next turned their loving attention to the Great Central Valley of California – once the richest, most productive ag land in the world. Our liberal friends decided that the Valley’s farmers were using too much water. Seems that during dry spells, which are a routine part of California’s natural cycle, the Delta Smelt, a four-inch long fish of little distinction were having difficulties when the rivers feeding the delta run low. “Something has to be done!” the self-appointed stewards of the planet shouted. Pay no attention to the fact that the smelt and all other creatures native to California evolved to handle the natural ebb and flow of the state’s annual rain cycle. Something has to be done! We must make a choice! Its people or the smelt! Our liberal friends had no trouble choosing between the fish and the people. They chose the fish. Using every legal trick in the books, our liberal friends began shutting off the tap to the farmers of the Great Valley who are slowly but steadily going out of business. And the folks who work for them – many of them the very same minorities that Mojo and his friends are so compassionate about — are following in their tracks. Unemployment in the valley is now at Great Depression levels of 20 to 25%. Despite this massive transformation of the state’s economy, there has been precious little reported in the Dinosaur media. Such stories just don’t interest our liberal media corps. Hey they’re just farmers and loggers. Not like their real people, you know.
When one points out to liberals, as I have done repeatedly , that their actions have brought massive, bitter suffering to people, many of whom don’t have the options liberals have to just pick up and move on to “greener pastures”, one cannot help but be shocked by the complete, utter lack of empathy for these victims of liberalism’s all consuming compassion.
So please, Mojo, save us the phony tears for your fellow man. The fact is that given a choice between people and their latest ideological cause, Liberals can be counted upon to pick the cause of liberalism almost every time.
Liberals don’t bother to sympathize with anyone who disagrees with them because liberals believe such people are evil. Why waste the mental energy trying to empathize with the devil?
Wow! A great article and a great series of comments. I see another way in which we can give pause to the liberals: Win the next elections. This will work because a lot of the glue behind the adherence to liberalism comes from peer pressure, and the desire to conform. After a series of significant electoral and cultural victories, there will suddenly be something “cool” about being a conservative.
I see many examples of liberals switching their loyalty to the conservative perspective as the travails of life brings maturity to their world view. I don’t see a corresponding movement in the opposite direction. Defeating the liberals by the ballot is much like confronting the bullies: They back off, and sometimes they even attempt to earn your friendship. Be a good soldier. Fight!
Clearly, Dr. Helen is on to something very important here. If she is right, and I believe she is, that liberals and leftists fail to show any empathy for those who disagree with them, this also says that they refuse to recognize them as fellow human beings. As commenter #66 mentioned, this is a way of shunning people, treating them as social pariahs.Coupled with the requisite name-calling, it makes them feel like outsiders to community, not worthy of human interaction.
Why do leftists do this? It is simply a classical technique of thought reform or brainwashing. Rather than try to persuade someone of the truth of your position, and rather than participate in the marketplace of ideas, you shun them when they disagree you and shower them with love and praise when they say something that correlates with your point of view.
This is why there are certain Republicans– I will refrain from naming them– who become heroes on the left, who get invited to write in all the best liberal media, and who are praised for their good judgment when they defend liberal positions or when they attack their fellow conservatives.
Anyone who has absorbed someone’s deep contempt, who has felt worthless and lost because of it, will rejoice to experience the love that feels like it can make it all right again.
Defending yourself from such forms of psychological manipulation are difficult indeed. Evidently, one needs to ignore those who can do no better than shun you and to develop a community of people who respect your point of view, whether they agree with it or not.
There is a lot to be said for being intolerant of people who treat you as if you do not merit membership in a human community, and not wasting your time trying to gain their praise or love.
@89. mojo: – I feel, being that I am a liberal, that I am extremely empathetic to infinite points of view.
You “feel”. Another classic example of you shooting yourself in the foot with your own rhetoric.
Pay attention:
- … most liberals are opposed to wars, injustice towards minorities, and they care for the well being of ALL citizens of the US as well as the whole world.
The problem with this naive, limited – morally adolescent – viewpoint is that it’s insufficient in terms of what’s required to actually deal with the real world and real human nature as they currently exist. That reality stands in stark contrast to the fantasy world in which most liberals live, where “good intentions” automatically translate to moral authority and any means can be justified by politically correct ends.
In short – your conviction is that “caring” is enough, for you. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of manifesting what you “feel” is right, you invariably push for collectivist solutions funded by other people’s money and, eventually, other people’s blood.
- … liberals feel that based on the facts that conservatives are not moral at all, …
That’s because you pick and choose which facts you wish to consider. Liberals – like you, apparently – seem to think, for instance, that an unrestricted right kill unborn babies doesn’t qualify as being “willing to kill our citizens”. That’s a very special kind of mental illness.
- The authors definition of empathy is intolerable and biased.
Your opinion.
- … when a person is educated on all the facts, then it becomes perversely funny when an uneducated person tries to create ideas through fiction.
And there we have the essence of your self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. The sad reality is that – like your mindlessly liberal ilk – you are woefully ignorant of the facts, as you have demonstrated time and again throughout the threads on this site. And the fictions you’ve created about conservatives so as to bolster your own fragile self-esteem and support your blind obeisance to a thoroughly discredited ideology, are funny only in the most perverse sense.
#118 Jake
“Now you want to whine”? You convince no-one, and reinforce Dr. Helen’s thesis.
For what it’s worth, my conversion from liberal to neocon happened through some personal experiences I had that most of my liberal friends and acquaintances would never have had. It wasn’t at all through conversation from a conservative, especially since I didn’t really know any. In fact I still don’t really know any. (Family and friends and coworkers all love Obama still. When they admit a little dissapointment for Dear Leader they then say, “well he’s still better than McCain or that idiot Palin” which comforts them when they consider they might have made a mistake. They bond with eachother over their hatred of Sarah Palin and how stupid they think she is when she is far smarter and more successful then they are.) When liberals wake up someday through getting the shaft due to touchy feely pc crap they will probably change. And that day may come sooner rather than later from the looks of things. The academic professors fascinate me, in that they still think the same way they did when they were twenty. Their politcal philosophy is still exactly the same. How bizarre. But I guess not really considering they never left school, and have the easiest jobs in the world. Interestingly enough, they are always espousing their sympathy for the downtrodden, but who could be more downtrodden in U.S. society than college students who naively take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that many will never be able to pay back and of which they cannot declare bankruptcy. They are complete indentured servants exploited by the professors they so worship. What a scam. College costs kept going up because government money was guaranteed to them on the backs of college students who would apply to the government for the money (their debt) and they would give it to the universities. The universities would get the cash and the government would be paid back on the backs of under employed college grads. As far as I’m concerned academia is by far more unethical and exploitive of people than any corrupt greedy corporation. And college students for the most part, especially at private colleges, are “mules” for this obscene system. How these professors can look these young people in the eye without feeling extraordinary shame is beyond me. Such a disconnect there.
Whenever I read articles about the disfunctional Liberal, I muse about the possibility of dividing up this Country and some how leaving Liberals to their own devices. If we as Conservatives and Liberatarians could just go somewhere and be rid of them wrecking our society. But, then I realize how this Great Country began largely on the notion of escaping sociopaths. Despite being founded on bedrock conservative princples, it has become infected with the liberal mindset of today. How can this be explained? It seems to me there must be a genetic defect within the human race where a certain number of mentally compromised individuals will eventually comprise a society. Sadly, I am forced to admit that ultimately there is no escaping their lot. We are stuck with having to put up with them and to make the best of it, fighting on to maintain some sense of a rational society.
“… liberals may have a blind spot when it comes to having any empathy or understanding for their conservative brethren.”
Or, they may be petty, unthinking tyrants who never were liberal to begin with. That’s one reason why they are calling themselves “progressives” these days — because they aren’t liberal. They don’t believe in individual freedom, or free-wheeling debate, or excellence, or the ability of brown-skinned people to govern themselves, or the ability of white-skinned people to deal fairly with others. I’d call them misanthropes, because they don’t like people.
I also would argue that to say that liberals are the only ones who are mindlessly chowing down the garbage that has been fed them is disingenuous at best. I came from a conservative Christian family. I am still close with my family and love them very much. I am incredibly interested in the political process, and get my news from many sources. I am liberal, but I certainly havent been force fed liberalism, in fact, most of the people in my life are conservative. Conversely, many people I know from college, people from rural Ohio, vote according to the conservative, religious views of their parents. That doesn’t necessarily bother me, although I encourage people to be more informed when they make a decision. But there are people on both sides of the aisle whose beliefs do not come from an informed place. And for all of you to rant that liberals are unwilling to listen to and open their minds to conservative ideas while listing all the horrible reasons liberals couldn’t possibly right about anything doesn’t seem overly open minded of you or productive. Are any of you interested in talking to a liberal that actually is enthusiastic to hear some ideas, and find some way to meet in the middle? Or would you rather they get angry and not listen to you, so that you never actually have to admit that maybe they aren’t as evil as you think? Seems like you love it when they live up to your high expectations of failure.
Ok, Ok, I get the message WE just F#@*&%$ hate those ________?
Chose and answer to fill in the blank: A. Socilist Democrats. B. Capitalistic Republicans.
Now this is a challenge to each and everyone of you. Go read this blog and take some advice pay attention. Because they are way ahead of US!!
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/who-we-are/
Then read this:
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/what-we-do/psychology-and-politics/
With all the caterwauling . . . I get the loudest of all messages . . . WE DON”T KNOW OUR ENEMY . . . Which means WE WILL LOSE THE WAR . . . Yes we may win a few battles . . . but in the end we will lose.
Read the above and understand a little about esponiage . .. it is made up a multitude of information from independent sources that ultimately leads to the development of an ultimate knowledge of your enemy that even your enemy is not aware. You have to understand the enemies critical weakness . . . and that my friends is . . . What you have just described . . . his unwillingness to acknowledge the fault of HIMSELF.
@118. Jake: – …I don’t see much evidence here of conservatives’ empathy for liberals either.
This is a perfect example of the sort of distorted thinking that results from the moral adolescent‘s obsession with “fairness”, as identified by Haidt’s and his colleagues’ research.
It requires a very special sort of self-delusion to ignore the fact that conservatives have been sympathetic to liberals’ “feelings” for decades, if not a full century, as demonstrated by the relentless compromise conservatives/republicans have pursued in response to socialist/progressive ideology. This compromise is clearly reflected in the socially suicidal policies that now govern this nation. And even as those policies proceed to destroy our economy and our very way of life, you whine about conservatives’ lack of “empathy for liberals”. Few things could be more absurd.
Tex Taylor (#117) Heh! No problem. Yeah, I think you misread me. The exclamation point of my European colleague came at the end of a harangue on religious thought generally. The irony of his final thought was completely lost on him – until I started laughing. And this you must understand was a very good academic speaking and quite proud of his progressive political views. There are tawdry chapters in political, scientific and religious history all, where people uncritically accept dogma to great detriment. I picked on religious history because it fit the story of my friend. Nothing more.
I have to say that this entire thread saddens me to no end. Liberals are tyrannical, you see. Of course, if you go to a thread of Kos, you’ll see that conservatives are tyrannical, you see. No one, apparently, ever engages in group think — except the other side. X is a socialist. Y is a fascist. Z is a theocon. Sigh.
I find it very funny that not just a few years ago the conservatives were trash talking Ron Paul. Now everyone is cool with libertarians because of the tea party. All the conservative are now jumping on the libertarian band wagon. Not only that, but they are now claiming they are very enlightened and open to other peoples opinions. Everyone here who is just trying to demonize people who think differently is a hypocrite. I am not saying there are not a lot of hypocrites on the left, but how can you think you are any better, when you are engaging in the exact same behavior.
Shorter #118
Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later. Proves out Haidt to a tee.
Wait, I thought empathy was a bad thing that led to runaway socialism and redistribution of wealth.
OK everyone, update your talking points… I mean “core beliefs.”
Empathy is now a good thing. Empathy has always been a good thing.
mojo:
You say:
However, the facts are these: most liberals are opposed …
to wars … you mean the revolutionary war was wrong? How about the Civil War or World War I or World War II ?…
…injustice towards minorities… Is that why they oppose vouchers for poor so they can go to a good school or oppose strong policing methods that make neighborhoods safe or tolerate anti-Semitism and anti-Asian bias through support Islamic terrorism and measures to keep percentage of Asian students down?…,
…and they care for the well being of ALL citizens of the US as well as the whole world… Is that why it is documented that conservatives are more charitable then liberals giving more in money and time to help the poor? If liberals care so much then why do is their so much poverty, dysfunction and crime in cities governed by liberals? …why have liberals supports tyrants like Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Arafat and the Iranian Mullahs?
Poor Citizen:
Your definition of the middle is skewed so far left that it’s out of touch with reality. Have you checked the polls? Obamacare is not gaining support. The bill the President and Democrats in Congress are losing still losing support over it. It will get worse as healthcare gets more expensive and less available.
Brian N:
Have you bothered to read the news? An Obama fund raiser was just arrested for making threats against Congressman Cantor. There is a liberal on Twitter who has been calling for the assassination of Sarah Palin and her family and last weekend SEIU thugs attacked a Tea Party Group with eggs.
Ironic how the comments here from the obvious liberals prove Helen’s point.
#127 @Maureen: “You convince no-one”
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m just laughing at the irony of someone asking “why can’t liberals empathize with conservatives” and then immediately comparing us to psychopaths. Oh yeah, way to show empathy there, Dr. Helen!
When I hear Rush, Sarah, Sean, or any other high-profile conservative acknowledge that liberals are “real Americans” too, that our opinions and votes count just as much as theirs do, that we’re just trying to make this a better country as we see it (just as conservatives do as they see it) and that that’s our right as American citizens, then I might be willing to listen to conservatives whining about being misunderstood. But as it stands, it is to laugh.
I’m very late to the party, but I recall reading Haidt’s essay. I think this essay is off the mark — liberals don’t empathize with conservatives because they *usually) explicitly and consciously reject three of five moral foundations. These included ingroup loyalty, purity/sanctity, and authority/respect. (Unconsciously, they are actually more rigid in these areas than most conservatives and especially religious people, but not in terms conservatives think.)
To a liberal, purity doesn’t mean treating yourself as a noble creature who reins in his sexual desires and other passions and not a hypersexualized beast, but intellectual purity. Ingroup loyalty doesn’t mean being proud to be an American or a Scrantonian, but being proud of being a liberal. Authority/respect doesn’t mean learning from American tradition as a whole, but only from their own progressive tradition and thinkers — and anything else that will fit their emancipation narrative (i.e., progressive thought emancipates from the slavery of the past).
Many liberals and conservatives suffer from the same soul sickness — we fail to love fully, and to live lives grateful for the God who made us, and thinking if we can just win the next election … don’t fall into that trap.
But liberals tend to suffer worse — because they explicitly have cut off the path to their own happiness. In private, very little is as miserable as a failed liberal or washed-up 60s radical who has belief in something beyond this world. In public, they will seem happy and content. But in private, you’ll quickly see the misery.
They are to be loved, not feared and not loathed. But few of us, myself included, have learned to love unconditionally and freely after having been whipped bloody and issued a cross to carry. My personal challenge during these times is to learn to love deeply, even those who today cheer, tomorrow mock, turn violent the next, and then repent in tears after that.
OK, sermon done. God bless and may you find deep, lasting peace in your hearts and the ability to love all, no matter what your politics.
#62 and #63 P T Bull
#121 Chris Bolts Sr.
These two posts compliment one another.
In the days after September 11, someone made the remark, “Our conscience is their hiding place,” to explain how this unthinkable attack could have happened. I have never forgotten that.
It explains the way the HR bill was passed. We could count the pro-life votes, calling for the vote seemed like suicide, why did they proceed? We didn’t think they would stoop that low. Our conscience was their hiding place. Pelosi, on the other hand, correctly read her fellow Democrats and knew they would cave. She knew.
You don’t have to know that much about your friends, and you know the rest of that saying.
Two Universal truths:
1. The neo-liberal can never be convinced or reasoned with. Like most neo-libs-turned-Jeffersonian libs their epiphany must come from within – a long second glance at their w-2. The pondering of the job opportunity lost to the competitor with less credentials but with the black dot on the corner of the application. The post apocalyptic event (such as the 9/11 mass murder) awakening.
2. The neo-liberal suffers an extreme form of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the FACTS that A.everywhere their world view is taken to its logical utopian conclusion, walls must be erected to keep that country’s citizens IN and B. The vast majority of violence,mayhem, and mass genocide of the past century was/is perpetrated by the left. Hitler,Mao,Stalin,PolPot,Che,Castro, et al…
IS anyone here honest enough to say how utterly ridiculous and dishonest this is?
Whew. I don’t know if I can wade through the posts after that absurd generalization about the awfulness of millions of people who are liberals. Someone else may be asking the same questions.
Does anyone seriously buy this nonsense? Do none of you have liberal friends? Family?
Exceptional article/discussion, timely, and deeply provocative.
I know this experience myself with Leftist English profs. With one, I had taken nearly a dozen classes (lit and writing) and had amassed excellent grades. Until I chose the subject of statism for one of my papers (ca. 1989). This chap went ballistic; the paper returned to me had the look of being dipped in blood, so huge were the comments written, so many, and with such an excess of exclamation points and underlinings.
But only in the past two years have I thought back on that paper and the whole of my writing education under his tutelage and understood that I was under the influence of a master manipulator who hid his marxist agenda under the guise of an all-knowing, wise, beneficent, and avuncular personae.
These people are convinced that their narrative, their worldview accords with reality — and ours does not; therefore we are disdained and dismissed and ridiculed.
We must tackle the struggle on the three fronts you suggest, with gusto and a deep sense of urgency.
Yes to goy: NO COMPROMISES. They seek to crush us. Make no mistake.
The most amazing thing to me, as what I guess most people would call a liberal, though I don’t really consider myself one, is the fact that each side of the aisle seems F*CKING CRAZY. Everybody seems to think “oh those damn conservatives, if only they would care about more than just themselves and learn to get along.” Or “oh those psychopathic liberals, unable to empathize, think, etc.” If only each side would stop, take a minute, and listen to the other we would have a lot less problems. And don’t try and say that the Right is this empathic and caring creature that would love to listen to what the liberals have to say. It’s just not true; neither side seems to give a flying rats ass about what the other side thinks. It goes both ways, and if you really believe otherwise than I would advise you to wake up and smell what you’re shoveling. As a person who watches both the Daily Show (definitely left-wing) and Fox (definitely right-wing), all I ever seem to see is criticisms of the other side. People need to realize that this unstated policy of whomever is in power ignoring the other party until that party gets into power really needs to end. If there is one thing that I could suggest to the people of America, it would be to not just watch news that agrees with your personal beliefs. I know it makes life easier to just hear what you want, but that doesn’t make it necessarily true.
134. donttreadonme: Let me hit you with a little bit of Knowledge. That first person on your list, Hitler, was a Fascist. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism. It is the right. I am liberal, and I am happy to listen to anything you have to say, if you are able to keep your facts straight. That is my only requirement. Also, please stop trying to pigeon hole all liberals into the same shape. Just like conservatives we come in different shapes and sizes. We are not the enemy, just people with different philosophies on life.
Okay, I admit it: I’m a reformed lefty. I’m from a very liberal town. Anyway, my take on the left is that their main drive is to be ‘different’ — to be the guru, to be the only one who really ‘gets it’. They do band together out of necessity, but despite all their fake populism they are desperate to each be a culture of one.
There is also a superficiality that is so ironic. Like the guy who wants to sport the most unkempt and pubic-looking beard on the planet and so much of his self-image is tied up (tangled up?) in his stupid beard. Or the bar we used to have here where they would treat you with scorn if you were dressed like a grownup, but like a king if you wore cutoff army pants and a Grateful Dead t-shirt. Deep, dude.
They don’t realize that center-right is a popular place to be because it actually works out for the majority of people. To them it’s a badge of shame to not be the lonely misunderstood tatter way out on the fringe.
MissNicky:
To answer your question, one side of my family is extremely liberal. So liberal that my grandfather was actually a member of the Communist Party of the United States. I am quite familiar with liberal thought patterns but I don’t hold anything against my mother’s family
Probably being simplistic (sweeping generalization and all that) but oh, well…
Liberals think of themselves as believing in and working for the betterment of mankind. Clean environment, no discrimination, healthcare for all, equality for all. These are all goals and they probably define themselves based on what they want to achieve.
Conservatives, IMO, certainly have the same goals, maybe not all the same, but have concerns about the process or path taken to achieve them. Sure, they want a clean environment and would like to do so in a way that minimizes government intrusion to a minimum and lets people otherwise try their best and hopefully prosper. Sure they want equality and no discrimination but they stop at trying to get equality of outcome, feeling that in general a person should prosper to the extent of his or her effort.
Liberals look at HOW conservatives want to do things, which often asks ‘how effective was that approach’ or ‘this does not seem like a place for government to control all’ and feel that since conservatives don’t believe in the same goals (as liberals see it) that they must be against those goals. That makes conservatives and actually anybody, even other slightly less liberal types, who do not expouse the same goals the enemy. Since nobody can be honestly against what the liberal wants then the opposition must be EVIL.
This attitude destroys political discourse. How can one have a discussion with someone who one classified as EVIL? One does not. Because by being EVIL, that person must therefore be an extremist and nobody has to talk to or discuss anything with an extremist on any kind of even footing. Obviously, the EVIL person’s ideas cannot have any validity.
BTW, this justifies why preventing a conservative speaker from speaking at a university, for instance, is by liberal views so necessary and correct. You don’t debate extremist (conservative) viewpoints. There is no need.
So the discourse deteriorates because one side willing to discuss how to get somewhere is not enough (this can cut both ways too). The old saying, “it takes two to make peace and only one to make war” seems to hold true here. I don’t know what could be done to change the circumtances.
@146: The problem, MissNicky, is that we do have liberal family and acquaintances.
If you’re an American liberal, try this test on yourself:
– Pick a subject on which you disagree dramatically with the conservative position.
– Jot down your points of disagreement on policies that address that subject.
– Now ask yourself: Is my disagreement reflect my belief that conservatives are:
1. Ignorant: i.e., misinformed on this subject?
2. Stupid: i.e., can’t figure out how to address the subject?
3. Evil: i.e., their morals are too deficient to address this subject?
Try it with a few subjects.
Whenever you answer “ignorant,” you’ve allowed that if a typical conservative were as well-informed as you, he’d reach the same conclusions you’ve reached. That’s the most innocent of the three possibilities.
Whenever you answer “stupid,” you’ve assumed intellectual superiority over your conservative opponents. This is insulting at the least, for as the old saying goes, “Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.”
Whenever you answer “evil,” you’ve declared that conservatives are morally unacceptable, fit only to be imprisoned or executed.
Some liberals pass this self-assessment with flying colors…but among vocal, politically active liberals, the number is decreasing.
P.S.: If you get to this point, you might realize that I’ve cheated just a little. I left out one more innocent explanation for a difference of opinion: different priorities. But this is hardly ever the explanation that a liberal will adopt. If you do adopt it, you’re a singular creature indeed, and conservatives can talk to you constructively. Verbum sat sapienti.
What Orson Scott Card says about this might be illuminating. It’s a much better essay than what Helen Smith wrote.
http://ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2010-03-21-1.html
Liberals are not the devil. Imagine that.
@146. MissNicky: – Do none of you have liberal friends? Family?
Probably most do.
As Haidt’s various works have demonstrated, ideological tolerance is far more prevalent among conservatives than among leftists. The reason is simple: liberal morality is quite literally a subset of conservative morality.
In plain English, it’s most likely that conservatives don’t hold their friends’ and family’s leftist proclivities against them. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that the reverse is very, very rarely true.
Tex Taylor (#117) In regards to my little anecdote, it might also be that the capacity, perhaps the desire, for the transcendent lies in most. When constrained, it will find an outlet, and not always in ways most productive.
MissNicky (#146): So, you admit that you haven’t read all the posts, and yet you pass judgment on all – even so far as to characterize the authors: “Do none of you have liberal friends? Family?” Interesting.
The empathy thing.
When liberals seek to shame conservatives with the lack-of empathy trope its purpose is to take our eyes off of what they’re doing to destroy this country and to stimulate us to navel gazing.
It’s diversionary. It’s projection — they have no empathy for us so naturally they figure we have no empathy for them; in the meantime they’ve used our decades-long navel gazing to make significant inroads in their ‘TRANSFORMATION’ project.
Never, ever believe people whose motto is the end justifies the means: it includes lying to others to get the opposition off their back so they can proceed apace with much less resistance. DUH.
One key to liberals’ mindset is well stated by the subtitle to one of Thomas Sowell’s books, “Self-congratulation as the basis of social policy.” The liberal is not so much interested in achieving a better world as he is in telling you how much he wants a better world. Therefore, to acknowledge someone different than himself is to undermine his self-image.
#150 GFH — Sure they want equality and no discrimination but they stop at trying to get equality of outcome, feeling that in general a person should prosper to the extent of his or her effort.
Interesting that you mention this. In the PJM article re equating AGW believers with IDers we discussed some interesting stuff and one of the fun points was from poster “Jack In Silver Spring” who cited a book about what Darwin had wrong.
The fun part was that some of the more recent thought from evolutionary biologists (and their critics!) suggests that children can inherit learned behaviours, which essentially means that if true then there are parts of the evolutionary puzzle Lamarck got right.
OK, switching back to your comment — if liberals are trying to set things up so that an accident of birth doesn’t doom individuals, why would the long term ramifications of this be bad? Perhaps there are cases where equal outcome *is* the right and proper thing to shoot for, and the concept isn’t just political nonsense. Surely this twists the nature vs nurture argument.
Currently “a person should prosper to the extent of his or her effort” is shorthand for a meritocracy, where the higher IQ types will naturally fare better. (Meritocracies are always championed by the better endowed.) In effect this isn’t significantly different than a caste system. Maybe mankind isn’t doomed to castes or meritocracies after all. Maybe the liberals stumbled upon a fundamental truth. If so, how can this be a bad thing?
86. Brian N:
“For an example of this, notice how Eric Cantor can have his office shot at and it is played down with all kinds of excuses” Maybe liberals have a hard time disusing issues with you because you chose to make up facts and distort the truth.
Cantor’s shooter was arrested
Care to rephrase that “Making stuff up” robo libtard? Didnt think so.
Brian N:
Your historical ignorance is showing. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology that is an extension of Socialism. Its origins are found in the writings of the French radical syndicalist Georges Sorel and expanded upon by the Italian socialist theoretician and politician Benito Mussolini. You are using the Stalinist definition of Fascism, i.e., anybody opposed to Socialism.
Since the fall of the Wall, Fascist governance has made a comeback since Marxism-Leninism has been shown to be an historical failure. Totalitarians (another word coined by Mussolini) instinctively moved toward Fascism as the way society should be organized. Chinese President Hu Jintao has effectively acknowledged the relationship between Socialism and Fascism when he called the new Chinese political structure as Socialism with Chinese characteristics or under local conditions. That is how Mussolini understood Fascism. If he were alive today he would call Fascism, the form that Socialism takes when you account for national social-cultural dynamics.
That fact that you only understand Fascism through a Stalinist lens shows; that you lack a proper education; and are a prisoner of pre-1989 thought.
Hitler and his National Socialists were proper leftwing revolutionaries
I find this persuasive. So persuasive, in fact, that I’d call it influential. So influential, in fact, that I’m inspired to create a blog and put right there on the header that it was inspired by Dr. Reynolds and her philosophy.
It is good to know that, whatever I might write on that blog, Dr. Reynolds has pre-emptively agreed that it is free speech and that if she asks not to be credited as an influence, mentor, even endorser of what I say there, that she would be engaging in censorship and intolerance. Which she would, of course, never do, because she feels empathy, and understands that she should never set boundaries on how her name gets used if those boundaries might hurt someone else’s feelings. Setting boundaries like that is not only not – contrary to popular opinion – healthy, it’s actually abnormal and even a symptom of psychopathy.
Thanks Dr. R, I’ve got a date now with the blogspot registration page.
A lot of good comments here (notice I didn’t say ‘all’) But this one particularly struck me because I encountered a lot of it back in the day too:
“It was all a big ego game back then. Everyone competed to be the most radical, the most cutting edge; “He’s socialist labor” or “She’s Maoist”, etc.”
And when someone proudly proclaimed whatever “non-conformist” ideology they had adopted, it was always with a bit of an -“and I DARE you to challenge me!”- atitude. Unfortunately, they were rarely, if ever, challenged because of their surroundings; leftist professors, tight cliques, affirming media. Many just never grew out of it.
One thing that struck me about Kitely is how quickly he fell back on outdated stereotypes of ignorant southern rednecks in his arguments. I often wonder if such people have had any contact with the rural south other than watching late night reruns of Deliverance and the Dukes of Hazzard.
Our focus needs to be on the large group of people who are reflexively liberal in their political views simply because that is the sea they swim in everyday. They are often quite smart but narrowly focused and lacking in curiosity about events that don’t touch their day to day lives. Think of the lawyer who knows one part of the Internal Revenue Code inside and out but whose only other interests are her family and pop culture. At the same time, such people may be highly sensitive to status. Thus they often adopt attitudes they see in the media and pop culture without considering the long term consequences. Swimming with the mainstream school that way allows them to be immune from ridicule in areas they don’t have the time and inclination to examine in depth. Nor do they expect to feel any personal consequences from liberal government policies beyond a bit more in taxes. The irony here is that every such person I knew while I was practicing usually cringed at the superficial nature of and errors in most mainstream media news stories involving their own area of legal expertise. Yet they accepted the media’s assessment of vast areas of science, medicine, economics and government without seriously considering that similar errors were probably being made.
You can’t make such people curious about abstract ideas but you can begin to change the water they swim in so they are exposed to other solutions to the world’s problems. With readers abandoning papers like the NT Times and channels like CNN there are many opportunities to do so. Perhaps of greater importance, however, is that in 2010 such voters have become all too aware that instead of providing protection, swimming with the school has put their personal well being at peril. In 2008 they assumed that the media vetted Obama before they labeled him a middle of the road candidate. Now they find we are all heading straight into the maw of a net called exploding public debt.
@133 goy: “It requires a very special sort of self-delusion to ignore the fact that conservatives have been sympathetic to liberals’ ‘feelings’ for decades, if not a full century, as demonstrated by the relentless compromise conservatives/republicans have pursued in response to socialist/progressive ideology.”
Those “compromises” were just the result of being outvoted. Most of your fellow Americans decided to do something different than you thought they should. Conservatives fought those moves tooth and nail, the same way they fought health care reform. Or do you think Reagan’s famous anti-Medicare speech somehow showed a willingness to compromise?
I like the Card essay. I suggest conservatives read this part over and over: “Most of the people who supported Obamacare did so because they wanted to solve real problems in the real world.” I’m not saying conservatives aren’t (see how empathetic I am?), just that we’re all trying to make this a better country the best way we know how.
160. CJ: Go read the news. You are combing two separate stories. The person who was arrested was not the person who shot the random bullet that hit the window. The person arrested was a disturbed individual who had made youtube videos threatening Cantor. These are two separate stories. If you took time to read the news you would know this. Please be careful with your facts, you might come off looking like a liberal.
149. Fascism is not far right; it is far left, so much so that the only difference between a fascist and a communist is that fascists are content to leave private property in private hands while dictating the terms of its use, while communists seize it outright.
Francis W. Porretto–
For starters, if I took a method of pretending all conservatives think one way, and then postured myself as VASTLY superior, I hope to God I’d slap myself silly.
It’s childish, it’s meaningless, it’s dishonest. If I disagree with someone making a differing argument, I first assume they’re acting in good faith. I try and see their POV. I may learn something or at the least, understand something. I may not agree in the end but I believe strongly in tghe concept that many issues can have two sides that can be legitimately argued.
So, yes, guess where I land. Different priorities.
“Some liberals pass this self-assessment with flying colors…but among vocal, politically active liberals, the number is decreasing.”
I don’t have a count – do you? I see many blogs that disagree with say..the position of Republicans on the health care bill. But it’s far more about a particular argument rather than taking up for a principle of conservatism. I don;’t see the need there to call conservatives the opposite of Marxists, socialist, or anything like that.
The presumption in the article (beyond the extreme generalization about liberals) is the dishonesty about Jeff Goldstein. I’ve read some of his material. He’s famous for saying he’ll (ahem) “cockslap” people he disagrees with. I’ve visited his blog. If you want dispicable behavior, with people who can;t listen to a differing opinion..I suggest you make a beeline there.
The professor only called him a “Jerk”? Is there a thread at that site that doesn’t call Obama a Marxist who hates America?
They just ran a cartoon showing smirking Obama post-rape of a sobbing Lady Liberty. That was in fact the problem the professor had with Mr. Goldstein’s site. This is link, but oodly enough (sarcasm added) the reason is not mentioned.
Quote:
“Jeff,
Would you mind taking my name off your “about” page on Proteinwisdom? I’ve always liked you and your fiction, and your and [name redacted] impetus to make that conference happen, at that moment in time, did a great deal to speed this program along. I was also simply grateful to have you in the program when you came along, because you were–and are–a very smart and intellectual fiction writer, a rare commodity still, to this day. But I am more and more alarmed by the writings in this website of yours, and I do not want to be associated with it.
Brian Kiteley
”
And..let me get this straight..I’m supposed to tsk-tsking the bad behavior of ..liberals to Jeff Goldstein? I am sure there are good examples of people who behave badly. But I’m mystified why this one should be an example. That note is extremely polite.
This is a very, very bad opinion piece and I think I made a case for that. The irony of the thing is enough to take down a horse.
I hope others might see a bit of light here and understand the problem. And that irony thing, I mentioned. I’d say a lot of liberals AND conservatives would he offended by that site and that cartoon. Some of this may have been mentioned above. If so, I applogize if it seems to much of a re-run.
Thanks for the post.
I’ve always thought that most conservatives are sociopaths. It’s interesting one of your readers has brought the definition here. The lack of self-awareness must be what keeps you all from seeing how you fit nearly all the criteria. Truly fascinating.
Another fascinating thing is that you all seem to care desperately what Liberals think about you. I think this is one thing that truly separates liberals and conservatives. For us, you’re all a bunch of gnats, flying around, barely there. (Except, of course, when you’re having organized tantrums and planning to blow up police officers and stuff.) We don’t give a crap what you think about us. Your silly little misguided opinions matter not. I suggest you adopt the same attitude. If you did, you could unclutch your pearls a tad.
The bottom line is we’re never going to see things your way. And you all, being, well, you will never see things our way. We’re ok with that. Why aren’t you?
Progressivism is simply the outward manifestation of a God-sized hole in their collective intellect.
Mr. Alston:
The places where liberals rule unchallenged are places where the Lamarckian component of heredity work against the groups they claim to champion. LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York, New Orleans and many other communities are places where minorities, principally African-Americans, live in ignorance, poverty and fear of violence. It seems that the equality of outcomes that liberals want to share is at the ghetto level not the middle class level. You judge people by what they do, not what they claim to be about. Liberal governance shows that the only thing they want out minorities (and the rest of us as well) is our votes on Election Day. At all other times they do their best to keep the people poor and ignorant.
Speaking of needing apologies:
“Cantor’s shooter was arrested”
That was not the headline. A man was arrested was making a death threat toward Cantor. The police haven’t found a connection to the shooting which waas not at Cantor’s actual campaign office. I think it was a Republican office that had no sign saying what it was. And the police said the shot was random and had been shot up in the air.
Also..the man who was arrested made a scary threat toward toward Mr. Cantor. But he also made 2000 videos toward all kinds of people, including some that promised God’s wrath upon Obama, Reid and Peolsi. Some of the videos are easily found. The threats toward Cantor are appalling but the man appears to be very, very mentally ill and not a hater of only one party.
I hope the entire story is told here and conservative and liberal sites.
And Sorry..maybe I should have made an edit for “c**kslap”. Since we’re talking about manners and such, it seemed worth mentioning.
One might also note the names Kiteley
was called at the start of the comments, that probably continued on for some time.
Dos that count?..just curious. Thank you.
161. tdiinva: I am talking about the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism is associated with strong nationalist tendencies, something that is more on the right side of the political isle. IF you read Golomb and Wistrich’s Nietzsche, godfather of fascism, you will see that it was the concept of anti-egalitarianism and the ubermensch (superman)that spawned Mussolini ideas of Fascism. He was going the other way from socialism. Both Hitler and Mussolini banned abortions, is that something that the right believes. They were both highly nationalist, something that the right is. They were both anti-intellectual, something also shared with the right. I think I have made my point that Hitler and Mussolini Fascism is based on the right. You might also try reading Hitler’s Germany: origins, interpretations, legacies By Stackelberg, R.
Erik, I think you’re falling prey to the myth of the wise and noble savage. Hunter-gatherers are not always as in-tune with nature as modern sensibilities portray them (note too that an overly romantic attachment to primitive peoples is a trait of the Left). There’s plenty of evidence, for instance, of Amerindian tribes hunting buffalo by stampeding entire herds – male, female and young alike – over a cliff. An entire herd wiped out, never to produce another buffalo, and the tribe was only able to use a fraction of the dead animals at the bottom of the cliff. There’s also evidence, though the science is shall we say unsettled, that the arrival of Amerindians in North America spelled the extinction of several large mammals. The myth of primitive tribes as careful stewards of the environment is a myth – mostly they had a limited impact on the land because they were nomads, small in number and roaming over a large territory. They moved on when they had depleted an area, and came back after Nature had a chance to replenish it.
I’m not saying Liberals, or primitive tribesmen, are stupid. They both have intelligence. I’m just saying that perhaps their brains are missing a particular bit of circuitry that makes it easier for people with it to understand the abstract concept of production. Hunter-gatherers have all sorts of beliefs about how to ensure a good hunt, some functional (try not to kill the female deer) and some fantastic (shamans making sacrifices), but ultimately their world view is one of the Universe providing for them as long as they pay the proper respect to it. Farmers world view is that the Universe doesn’t give them squat, except for an opportunity to grow some crops.
Absolutely could explain it – you had the hardware all along, but only got the software installed as you matured. The ability to comprehend productivity isn’t enough by itself, you still have to learn how that applies to reality, and in today’s (or maybe, considering looming deficits, yesterday’s) world, we enjoy such massive productivity that feedback about lost productivity is (or was) often hard to come by. As kids, we’re usually sheltered from it. It takes time to learn why it matters, even if you have the wiring already in place.
There’s the old saying that rhhardin mentioned about young conservatives and old liberals (great post, BTW). It takes a while to learn that the simple solutions won’t work. It’s not the idealistic kids that are the problem, it’s the adults who refuse to learn. All I’m suggesting is maybe they’re just not genetically capable of learning the lessons that make someone abandon the simplistic approaches of Progressivism. That would tie together a couple of Dr. Helen’s points – some people are liberal because they’re genetically incapable of being anything else, and some people are liberal because they haven’t been exposed to information that shows how unworkable liberalism really is.
“But shouldn’t we all have the right to free speech?”
Yes, but the right to free speech described in the Bill of Rights has to do with the government’s suppression of speech. The example in this article has to do with a conversation between two private citizens, so the right to free speech doesn’t apply. If someone refuses to talk to you about something, he is not violating your constitutional right to free speech.
I recommend that the author follow these simple steps in the future:
1. Read the Constitution.
2. Understand the Constitution (careful, this is the hard part).
3. Avoid ignorant mistakes when citing constitutional rights.
And another piece of advice:
- If someone refuses to talk to you, don’t be such a crybaby.
I agree with 138. Wisco: “Empathy has always been a good thing.”
When dealing with leftist sheeple i recommend the following.
1. Straight Left to the nose
2. Right hook to the temple
3. Knee to the grion
4. Curb Stomp their head when they fall
Repeat step 4 until they stop moving.
Do that enough times and the problem will be solved.
168. MissNicky: I could not have said it better myself, fully agree with you
169. gaymarriedabortedfetus: you are a conservative pretending to be a liberal, but you are bad at it.
Aaron…
God bless you. I meant to address that element. And it’s an annoying fault of both sides to misunderstand the meaning of “freedom of speech”. I see it all the time.
*. If someone refuses to talk to you about something, he is not violating your constitutional right to free speech.*
Exactly. Saying someone is a “jerk” is just as acceptable as free speech as saying (I paraphase) “But I really hate Obama and my site calls him an evil Marxist all the time”. IMO ( I emphasize that) Goldstein seemed like the one who showed a great deal of intolerance for an opinion he didn’t like. He took his “friend’s “name to a blog where his fanclub lit into the guy. Holy smokes. How much more intolerant can one get in this matter?
I think this could be such an interesting topic if everyone just took some time to reject overreaching labels about either side.
We all carry wounds, so to speak – we all carry faults. We have that in common.
But wanting your name off such a site that would have a cartoon so extreme toward any President seems to be as valid an opinion as any. It may well be better than most. I’d love to hear what the problem is there.
tdiinva at 161,
Thank you! Most progressives who accuse conservatives of being Nazi expose their own political ignorance when they do so. Naziism is a left wing ideology, an offshoot of socialism and Marxist thought. More people need to get a grip on this reality.
Conservative thought and behavior involves free enterprise, capitalism, and the concept of liberty. These concepts are an anathema to Nazis who tolerated capitalism and corporations only if they served the state.
Given the inability to argue rationally with some people, I have a standard
e-mail for them. ” Hahahaha! I like you! You’re funny!” Perhaps getting bunches of similar e-mails would get their attention.
#174 BrianN — They were both highly nationalist, something that the right is. They were both anti-intellectual, something also shared with the right.
You are right and you are wrong. It’s a terminology problem. The far right shares a statist approach with the far left. Both extremes will disavow this; neither can see the similarities. In the case of the far left the excuse is reason whereas on the far right, it’s their version of god.
An illustration of this helps (look at the graph) —
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
The correct take on this is to view statism as the extreme, not elderly and increasingly useless left/right notation.
#171 tdiinva — The places where liberals rule unchallenged are places where the Lamarckian component of heredity work against the groups they claim to champion. LA, Detroit…
I’m glad you picked Detroit as an example; it’s pretty well established that most of what’s left there are functionally illiterate. The ones capable of moving away following work opportunities did so, whether black, white, or other.
No amount of Lamarck having a point is going to create a generation of Einsteins from any random gene pool. Assuming the biologists are correct this still appears to take generations of work.
Wow, interesting the amount of venom, and complete lack of empathy displayed here.
It’s also quite interesting that your supposition that liberals are completely without empathy is in direct contratiction of one of the “conservative” taunts “bleeding heart liberal”. I though the right had long accused the left of caring too much about others?
This whole article seems to have started because someone requested in an extremely polite manner that his name not be associate with something he not agree with. Rather than doing the rational thing and respecting that, the author then called him up “pressed” him i.e. harrassed him into a further answer at which time he was supposedly called a……… jerk. OMFG!!! Let the pearl clutching and panty wadding begin! How dare he not want to be associated with someone’s work he dosen’t agree with and how DARE he call someone who regularly takes pride in acting like a jerk, a jerk.
If you care to have the acutal information intead of your usual M.O. of relying on someon else’s skewed version of reality, the polite and actually somewhat flattering letter that started it all is here:
Jeff,
Would you mind taking my name off your “about” page on Proteinwisdom? I’ve always liked you and your fiction, and your and [name redacted] impetus to make that conference happen, at that moment in time, did a great deal to speed this program along. I was also simply grateful to have you in the program when you came along, because you were–and are–a very smart and intellectual fiction writer, a rare commodity still, to this day. But I am more and more alarmed by the writings in this website of yours, and I do not want to be associated with it.
Brian Kiteley
I can empathise with you all, but I can’t understand why any group of people would activly choose to ignore any information that dosen’t support their flawed suppositions.
It’s definitely lack of education and exposure to competing ideas.
I distrust and dislike attributing the Left’s attitude to inherent personal failings, genetics, etc.–especially when I know they can be remedied by education. It reeks too much of the rabid quality of that paragon of dispassionate, Olympian, political analysis, George Lakoff {“The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, or How to Overcome Your Genetic Fascist Tendencies and Stifle Your Inner Nazi”.
I was once a useful liberal idiot; I believed everything my professors and the media told me. In fact, it wasn’t until I was in my 40s–after 9/11–that I roused myself from my intellectual torpor and made a study of the philosophical differences between the parties. The idea that the parties were defined by distinct, historical, philosophies was a revelation to me; I just thought the Republicans were a bunch of selfish assholes. Considering the poor manner in which the Republicans have represented the ideals of small-r republicanism, you can’t really blame many Americans for not know the difference between the Left and the Right–most Republicans can’t even articulate it. Many of them not even know the difference between a republic and a democracy themselves. In a genuine liberal education, a study of those philosophical differences would figure prominently and include history, philosophy, politics and economics.
Alas.
Ideas opposed to marxism are not taught in school, and not given any exposure in the media. Many Liberals have not made up their own minds–they’ve believe people who’ve made up their minds for them. So we end up with citizens thinking that conservatives are greedy, hateful, xenophobic and cruel and that socialism, Che, and a lack of personal freedom are good things. A friend of mine hates Sarah Palin, not because she hates Sarah Palin, but because other people hate Sarah Palin.
It’s not the people themselves, it’s the messages they get and the messages they believe.
Liberals are not psychopaths, Libertarians are psychopaths. Liberals are Idiots. Conservatives are Morons.
You can depend on a moron in many cases. A moron would see an attack on our country as, An Attack On Our Country, and consider the possibility of preventing another one.
Project much?
Mr. Alston:
You are very perceptive. The modern left/right dichotomy is in itself a Stalinist creation. The real spectrum runs from what a friend of my calls free governance (extreme libertarianism) to Statism (Classical Fascism/Communism).
Brian:
Your definition comes down to Fascism is rightwing because the left says it is. Except the left, i.e., Stalin and his associates never really applied rightwing to Mussolini. They recognized, as Lenin did, that Fascism was a leftwing deviation and not a rightwing ideology. Mussolini never believed in the superman ideology. He supported interracial mixing because it would bring hybrid vigor to the population. Mussolini built his socialist model on the idea of the reconstitution of the Roman Empire which was a multi-ethnic society.
Like all leftists/statists your education is short on historical knowledge and dominated by talking points derived from a political line.
“Thank you! Most progressives who accuse conservatives of being Nazi expose their own political ignorance when they do so. Naziism is a left wing ideology…”
Help….
Help……………..
Please, tell me we can at least agree on the basics in here. And as a long shot, perhaps – can anyone agree labels can be quite vague in history and in everyday life.
Anyone? What would Nixon with his domestic programs of the time or Goldwater with his social views be called today? Or is that too uncomfortable for some to bear?
I wrote a long comment, but decided it didn’t say at all what I’d like to say so I deleted it. I don’t live in the USA right now, though I have plenty of family and friends there and I’m well aware the media is not nearly as liberal as you think. I live in the UK. Even our media isn’t unbiased (a lot of it leans, even just slightly, towards conservative). Still, the vast majority of our media sources look positively tree-hugging compared to channels like Fox news.
Still, I don’t live where you do. I can’t say for sure that America is as completely conservative as it looks to the rest of the world. Even liberal ‘hotspots’ seem to be lost in seas of “red” looking in from the outside. Far from ‘free of conservative influence’. In fact I read recently that Texas wants to remove important historical figures from history books because they were liberal minded. Talk about biased education.
What I do know, is that in the case of Jeff Goldstein you mentioned I actually understand Kitely’s situation. Not any insults that were exchanged, only the man who wrote them can explain that and I, as a spectator, don’t agree with it. There’s a difference though, between saying “Kiteley taught me” in an article or an interview, and putting the name down on a permanent ‘about’ page. If I Googled Kiteley’s name and found that page, I’d think it was an indication of his own views that had been passed along. It implies “influenced by”. I think he’s within his rights, politely, to ask not to be mentioned on that page. That’s just my opinion, obviously many disagree.
PS. tdiinva – Hitler wasn’t a socialist in any sense of the word. He pretended to be, to start with, to get votes. It is not how he stayed. Yes, he got more jobs for people – by not allowing many women to work. Or Jews, or homosexuals, or people with any form of disability. They didn’t count, only people who could make money counted. The rich got richer and the poor really didn’t. That? Is not socialism. Stalin took communism and corrupted it so much he practically made it fascism where the poor were abused and the rich having a ball, thanks. Don’t mistake Stalin for a socialist either. It is true that the extremes of left and right are extremely similar though. However, I’ve yet to see anyone anywhere suggest anything *like* extreme socialism in America though, so I fail to see how it applies.
@165. Jake: – Those “compromises” were just the result of being outvoted. Most of your fellow Americans decided to do something different than you thought they should.
This is a dangerously naive notion – one that could only come from someone active in politics beginning with the most recent general election cycle. It could only be considered ‘true’ if every major vote on a controversial bill had come out split on party lines. In terms of major legislation, that’s only ever come close to happening once: with the recent, illegitimate passage of the socialized medicine bill. That bill not only clearly violates the limits our Constitution places on Congress, but its passage also clearly violated Congress’ own procedural rules. Those rules have been extolled by stentorian Democrats as long as they work to the benefit of their collectivist agenda. Recently, those rules were simply ignored to pass legislation that was notable primarily for its BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION.
The part of history you miss if you think your statement is true is this: over the decades, the Republican party has grown increasingly willing to compromise with the leftist agenda on everything from entitlements to the growth of government. Reagan himself governed essentially as a centrist. Surely, more recently, you’ve heard of “compassionate conservatism” – aka “Socialism Lite®. This policy is pursued partly for political gain and partly out of pragmatism.
Also, some conservatives clearly believe that, in debating with leftist politicians, they are addressing fully-realized, mature adults whose moral framework is complete and deserved of serious consideration. Unfortunately, as Haidt’s research demonstrates, this is absolutely not the case. Compromise with leftist ideologues has been socially suicidal, as the long, slow decline of our Republic demonstrates. Societies based on leftist ideology either fail, fail catastrophically, or fail with the attendant murder of tens of millions. This is because the moral framework that forms the basis of leftist ideology assumes a human nature that does not exist, and which has never existed.
- Most of the people who supported Obamacare did so because they wanted to solve real problems in the real world.
Exactly. And what they got, instead, is a non-solution for nonexistent problems that only appear in the left’s fantasy version of the world. What they got, instead, was a mandate that forces all Americans to purchase something whether they want it, need it, can afford it, or not, and which won’t solve ANY real world problems.
Card is a homophobic crank who’s bought into the “big tent” myth in search of Appeal to the Majority (a popular fallacy). His perception of what’s happening in America is no less fiction than his ponderous prose.
The psychoanalytical option (psychopath or sociopath) is wrongheaded and gratuitous; it is a tool/weapon that liberals use to bash conservatives and libertarians over the head with. I say this because I am a former liberal, as are many conservatives and libertarians these days. The way for liberals to become empathic towards differing worldviews is to be mugged by reality; preferrably repeatedly.
IP – due to your sincere response, I will respond. First, there is certainly merit to the tribal nature of political viewpoints. But I suspect, and I could be wrong, that you are trying to fit the world into your tribal theory. Yes, people will identify with a group and then often get comfortable in the group and be willing to consider outsiders. Yes, echo chambers, yes preaching to the choir and they can begin to view outsiders as evil.
But the idea that this world is just a bunch of equal ideas competing for space and if people would all just take time to give everyone a big hug…well it kind of went out with the Coca Cola ads and aging boomers thinking they can still solve the worlds eco-problems by driving their prius’ to the airport, catching a jet to a power-sucking rock concert where they wave the glow of their cell phone in an effort to help save the planet.
You’re idea of “bad faith” requires that there is in fact no “bad faith”. So, unless you think that Hitler and Stalin and their followers were just poor saps in need of a good hug then maybe, in fact, there are people who do not act in good faith. So are you saying that Obama – or any other leader for that matter – could never ever be another Hitler? The fact is that there is room for discussion that the current administration is radically nationalizing everything like other tyrants before them have done. Certainly it is a valid point for discussion considering that tyrants tend to get control and never give it back. Some of us don’t care to just give up our freedoms and live under the jack-boot of tyranny.
You say folks of good conscience should be building briges and you are, of course right. But when Stalin or Hitler’s tanks are headed for town, there comes a time when blowing up the bridge is a more prudent course of action.
and just to be clear, for all the nannies out there, I am not suggesting that one actually “blow up a bridge”. Rather I mean that there comes a time when one has to take a stand. One has to argue their point of view. Are you for slavery or against it. You can’t be one or the other. You can be against slavery and argue the means of how you will undo established slavery. But you can’t be both for and against it.
And to conclude my point, it is not just “tribal” theory that makes some stand on the side of evil.
@174. Brian N: – I am talking about the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler.
Heh. Proof positive that you didn’t even bother to READ what you were responding to. What portions of these historical facts didn’t make it past your confirmation bias:
Fascism is a revolutionary ideology that is an extension of Socialism. Its origins are found in the writings of the French radical syndicalist Georges Sorel and expanded upon by the Italian socialist theoretician and politician Benito Mussolini. … Hitler and his National Socialists were proper leftwing revolutionaries.
- Fascism is associated with strong nationalist tendencies, …
In pop culture and the dumbed-down education system in which you apparently learned history, yes. But that’s as far as the reality goes, and that’s true of all your other nonsensical associations.
If you look at the actual origin and evolution of fascism, you will discover that it was founded upon Socialism (as well as syndicalism and corporatism), and employs nationalism ONLY to the extent that it keeps the host nation independent of the Borg-like phenomenon of international socialism: Marxist-Leninist Communism (e.g., workers of the world… not just Detroit).
Mussolini – founder of fascism (it had no “godfather”) was a devout socialist who simply resisted being subordinate to the globalism of international socialism. Like Hitler, this was more a function of his monumental ego, not a function of any ideological purity. He rejected what the world then labeled “socialism” which, in fact, was international socialism – communism. He did so because he viewed Italian culture and the Roman Man as superior to all others (in the same way Hitler pretended to idealize the Aryan race) and his fascist ideology was driven by that notion: a desire to remain independent of outside influence.
175
There’s the old saying that rhhardin mentioned about young conservatives and old liberals (great post, BTW). It takes a while to learn that the simple solutions won’t work. It’s not the idealistic kids that are the problem, it’s the adults who refuse to learn.
Absolutely.
Regarding the “hunter-gatherer” analogy, I’m not saying it’s wrong, but my perception is that liberalism of the modern type is actually a by-product of a certain amount of affluence, but could not itself, had it pre-existed that affluence, been able to create it.
As a thought experiment, imagine every liberal on the planet died tomorrow (Oh, man, would that it were so!). Life would go on pretty much as it always had because the people left behind weren’t idiots caught up in lamenting the world because it doesn’t adhere to their theories.
If every non-liberal died tomorrow, civilization would collapse into a nightmarish fiasco combining the worst elements of tribal paganism and “The Lord of The Flies”.
Liberalism is a parasitic growth caused by the virtues of non-liberalism. If our hunter-gatherer ancestors had been liberals avant le lettre the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
Don: Have a banana.
Hitler banned abortions- for Aryans, and Aryans only. He actively encouraged abortions among other ethnic groups. Hitler was Margret Sanger’s greatest student. National Socialist was never a misnomer.
The Democrats in my and my husband’s families would never call themselves a Liberal or a Leftist much less a ‘radical’ and pretty much vote Dem because they grew up that way or because they or their husbands are in Unions.
I personally think most of the hard Leftists (Ayers being one easy example) are deranged, sick and twisted and don’t reflect on the average American Democrat but DO reflect on many of the Elitist LEFTISTS who pull the strings and have plenty of power.
Unfortunately, many Democrats are waking up to the fact that the people in the current WH are not the type of Democrats they knew and loved from days of yore and they are none too pleased and yes, afraid.
Helen
The one explanation you overlook for liberal intolerance is the most obvious: They have no logic, history, or evidence in support of their position, so they have no recourse but to stick their fingers in their ears and scream. This also explains why at the drop of a hat they resort to personal attacks and emotional hysterics. Finally, have you noticed how the people who are most suspicious of cheating are those most likely to cheat themselves? Liberals believe we need government to force us to be charitable, non-greedy, honest and “green” because they themselves tend to be stingy, self-involved liars who leave the lights on. They see the capacity within themselves for all the things they fear will run wild without the constraints of liberal policy. Plus they’re atheists who think intelligence, wealth, race—and yes, political persuasion—determine the value and merit of a person.
Otherwise you have it covered.
goy
Sorry, but someone who is a coward, fraud, and a liar cannot be taken seriously. In the article linked below:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/high-drama-amid-obamacare-threats/#comments-72
you were caught lying several times. The worst time was in post #72 where you suggested that you are a veteran. I’ve asked you repeatedly to name when and with what unit you served. You’ve repeatedly refused to answer those questions. A real veteran would be able to do so. It’s pathetic that you could be so cowardly as to pretend to be a veteran. Your comments cannot be taken seriously.
The left today is beyond rational hope. They are truly mentally deficient. From the narcassist in cheat Insane Obama, the Bolshevik Bitch Piglosi, the all too many screws loose Soros, or the plain twisted sick Nostril light us Henry the Waxoff, these folks today are the RULE on the left , not the exception. Dialogue does not work with them, they must be CRUSHED. Tell me, how well did dialogue work with Hitler? Read Neville Chamberlain for further detalis. Stalin? Khrushevs “diplomacy” led to the Cuban missle crisis. Millions of Cubans voted with there feet to risk death to escape Castro and Che. Several million more Vietnamese boat people did the same to escape the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot in Cambodia, or the Pathet Lao in Laos. The very fact that mentally deranged idiots like Piglosi, Charlie the Rang Ho , Clyburn(who still thinks every day is Selma, 1965-grow up racist black bigot)or a Dicksucker Durbin is still in office tells me too many Americans have drank the kool aid.
To those of you having difficulty coming to terms with Nazism being a left wing ideology, Hitler didn’t call it national socialism because he was a free market capitalist.
Barry Goldwater was, for the most part, a freemarket oriented capitalist who happened to be a strident anticommunist. It makes me laugh that lefties have an issue with Goldwater; remember he was the one who said that all god fearing Americans should give Jerry Falwell a good kick in the ass.
Nixon was statist and had a far more restrictive view of capitalism and free markets. He also possessed a proclivity for involving himself with and advancing criminal activity with an eye towards protecting his own political power and legacy.
35. IP Guy: wrote: This post confirms my theory that politics are entirely tribal — and that Dr. Helen is remarkably lacking in any kind of real introspection. I’ve been a blog reader since the very beginning of the format (one of the first Instapundit readers, Kaus, Josh Marshall, Sullivan, etc.) and as this new media developed I’ve been fascinated by the complete failure of everyone — on each side of the divide — to understand their opponents on even a fairly superficial level. Everything about our opponents becomes a cartoon:
————–
I agree. Some people make reasonable points here, but there is a preponderance of righties blaming lefties for being just like they are. Most people of strong political persuasion, simply look for ANYTHING which will confirm their own views and/or demonstrate that the opponents are immoral, stupid, weak, selfish, vicious, or whatever. Give and take, the two party system, the rhythms of American History notwithstanding; the true believers’ raison d’etre is to prove the other side villainous. It must be a human thing; being a little lower than the angels, whatever that means, we always prove, alas, that what the other side says about us is at last partially, if not substantially accurate.
Then, our only hope is to prove that the other side is worse, eh?
Ignore them for who they are.Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
‘For example, if a Republican vents at a Democrat, he or she will be seen as a “hate-monger.”’
So what?
I hate Democrats with a passion.
What’s wrong with that?
How should anyone deal with the left? Ignore them, don’t watch them or contribute to them. Most importantly, vote them out of office.
Here is the line for the blue eyes/ brown eyes documentary. I think it is very helpful to note the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html
1. I’m not sure it shows it in this video, but the little boy with glasses became very mean and very full of his new found power. They asked him about it years later (not sure if it’s in this video or not, don’t have time to watch) and basically he said that after having been picked on for so long, that it just felt so good.
2. Think of the role of the media and the academic institutions in relation to the role of this teacher. Ie: the one in power.
The thing is this. The children were only too happy, when they were the ones that the powerful-one established as superior. Their thoughts, their actions good – the others were bad. But at some point, many of the children who were deemed by the powers-that-be to be “superior” would have begun to realize that it was unfair. They would have had empathy. What level of unfairness empathy kicked in would be different for each child. But needless to say, if the teacher asked them to do something really awful to the inferior children, at some point, the superior children, at least the ones with empathy, would have refused.
One of the last hold-outs would have been the little boy with the glasses. Why? Because his sense of power was derived solely from the teacher deeming him superior based on his eye color. He would be likely to try and maintain his belief in eye color against all evidence to the contrary. He would want no logic or evidence to convince him otherwise.
So, as we get to a phase where the government is actually beginning to do something that is awful – take away our freedoms and to destroy our economy – there are those who will, against all evidence, refuse to see or believe. They will do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING they can to silence those who present evidence to the contrary. Why? Because to do so would be to admit that they are not smarter than or better than those right wing conservatives who they blame for all the world’s ills. They CAN NOT go back to being the class dork in the glasses.
And as it is with our liberal elites. They would rather sink the ship than admit that they are not only no better, but perhaps even lesser than those whom they have mocked and ridiculed as being inferior. Those red neck conservative Christians. Fools one and all. Not like me!
It’s a tactic that has worked in the Middle East for centuries. Sure, you live in a crappy, despotic ^^^^hole. But it’s not the fault of you or your leaders. It is the fault of the Jews.
Another scene in the movie Mississippi Burning tells the same tale. The poor white and the poor black farmer live next door to each other. The black man starts to get ahead and buys a mule and thus is doing better than the white man. So the white farmer kills his mule. Why? He tells his son that if you can’t be better than a ***, who can you be better than?
Anyway. My point is they won’t see because they can’t see. To do so would be too painful. They would have to acknowledge that they were wrong and LESSER than those whom they have spent staked their self esteem on being beneath their contempt.
Rachel, I understand your point — obviously, there is a “crossing of the rubicon” where legitimate ideas become deligitimized. The problem that exists today is that each side (left and right) has radically shrunk the space on the specrtrum for ideas they perceive to be acceptable. The likelihood that Obama is a totalitarian is exactly the same as the likelihood that Bush was a totalitarian: zero. Anyone who is not suffering from confirmation bias (i.e., everyone who isn’t a political obsessive on either side of the aisle) can tell that both men are well intentioned, and have differing views of the role of government, both views of which are well within the mainstream. It was fashionable to dismiss Bush as a totalitarian, as it is now fashionable to do the same with Obama, and both positions have little to do with reality. Medicare was a far more radical expansion of government than Obamacare, but I don’t see folks describing LBJ as a Maoist. Things have just become polarized to point of silliness — on both sides. That’s why it is so important for folks to start thinking about the sources of their anger. There are a lot of problems facing us, and the solutions being offered should be freely disputed. But imagining that our opponents are not merely wrong but evil and sociopathic when they are offering fairly anodyne solutions accomplishes very little.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
A rational person cares enough
about other people not to give
them false hope; If a political
discussion cannot start with a
common perception of the current
situation, there is no point in
continuing it.
@203. Mr. Independent: – goy …
Oh, Look! I have my very own Stalker!!
@193. goy: I have been active in politics for nearly 50 years, thank you. First of all, I’m not scared by the phrase “socialized medicine,” so don’t waste the HTML bolding it. Second, procedural rules were not violated in the passage of health care.
Historically, each political party has compromised with the other when they had to. Reagan governed as a centrist because he always had a Democratic House. Clinton faced a Republican Congress and gave us a welfare reform bill that many liberals hated. But during the GWBush years, with majorities in both houses, the Republicans did precious little compromising.
It’s a mistake to conclude that because no Republicans voted for the health care bill, it didn’t represent any willingness to compromise. As has been pointed out many times, the most liberal proposal–a single-payer system–was never even discussed, and the public option didn’t make it into the final bill. Lots of Republican ideas did make it into the bill–as many have pointed out, it’s very similar to a Republican governor’s plan in Massachusetts, and the individual mandate was a key part of the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care plan. Just because Republicans ended up voting against their own ideas for political reasons, doesn’t mean none of their ideas were in the bill.
And I recommend you read the entire article about Haidt that Smith links to. It makes it clear that he’s not saying that only liberals lack empathy–he’s saying we all do, and he’s just talking about liberals in that one sentence Smith chose to quote. Read more:
‘An unapologetic liberal atheist, Haidt has a remarkable ability to describe opposing viewpoints without condescension or distortion. He forcefully expresses his own political opinions but understands how they are informed by his underlying moral orientation. In an era where deadlocked debates so often end with a dismissive “you just don’t get it,” he gets it….”What I want to do now is help both sides understand the other, so that policies can be made based on something more than misguided fear of what the other side is up to.”‘
Just one blog example of ‘regular folk’ Democrats turning from this current admin in horror and disgust: http://hillbuzz.org/
There are plenty of decent, hard-working Dems who don’t want what the hard-line Leftists have in mind for fundamentally changing our country. We just have to reach out to ‘em.
Give and take, the two party system, the rhythms of American History notwithstanding; the true believers’ raison d’etre is to prove the other side villainous.
The failure in your reasoning is the “rhythms of American History notwithstanding”. The raison d’entre is to deal with how individuals are to be governed. To imply that we all simply join one group or the other and stick to it through thick and thin is simplistic and ignorant. The current government is changing our foundation from a government of “We The People” into “We the Government”. Those who fail to see the signs are as guilty as those who failed to recognize Hitler, Stalin, and all of the other tyrants of the world.
#207
Mock them. Make fun of them. Ridicule them. Get people to laugh at them at every opportunity. Be sarcastic. I generally employ the phrase “Mental Masturbation” to describe their thinking, or lack there of. Drives ‘em crazy. Another is “Verbal Diarrhea” in analyzing their utterances.
Confrontational? Sure, but so what…throw out the Marquess of Queensberry rules and take no prisoners.
Conservatives have always valued things like manners, civility and the rule of law because they are the basic underpinnings of a civil society. Liberals know that conservatives value these things and they use profanity, shouting people down and false accusation – among other things – to get conservatives to back down. Almost every single rebuttal liberals come up with goes into some bizarre sexual or scatological references because they think that will intimidate and turn off conservatives and make them go away. Often, they’re right. It does work.
Conservatives back down [i]specifically because[/i] they don’t want their society to sink into a discourteous, foul-mouthed, idiotic mess. That’s led to a huge amount of “go along to get along” and feeble acceptance from conservatives in every aspect of our culture – in academia, the news media, politics, entertainment media, you name it. I understand that we can’t pick an argument with everyone at every opportunity but conservatives need to speak up and not let themselves feel guilty, intimidated or browbeaten. The tide has begun to turn, especially via the Tea Parties, but we have a long way to go.
1. Less natural empathy. Flies in the face of studies done (by conservatives) which suggested that liberals were more “feeling”, conservatives more “thinking”. Empathy is closer to feeling, rationality is closer to thinking.
2. Liberal bubble. Quite possibly true. Red-blue county election maps show urban and northern trends blue while exurban-country-southern and great plains trends red. The wants and needs between those living in red and blue areas are quite different.
3. Lack of education. Jesus implied that do-gooding was much preferable to selfishness, but Rand implied the opposite. Liberals (“classical” included) tend to choose one or the other, while conservatives are better able to navigate between both concepts. I’d suggest that how the education one has earned is used, may be more accurate.
4. Perception is reality.
40 elaine wrote:
I think also (and again, this comes from personal experience of being a leftie) that most liberals don’t have any solid, rational reasons for believing what they believe. It all comes down to feelings and what they think is right and fair. Because they think their attitudes are what’s right and fair, they require no other justification in their own minds for their beliefs. So when conservatives/libertarians try to argue with these people, they find it difficult to impossible, simply because to a liberal, the only thing that matters is what they think is right, not what the actual facts are.
Yes, I’m a former liberal too and I know that many of my beliefs back when I was in my 20′s were completely unexamined. I just “knew” Reagan was bad and dumb, for instance. When I started examining those beliefs and really questioning myself, I started moving to the right.
But it wasn’t fun. It’s a difficult process and put me at odds with many of my friends. It’s intensely uncomfortable to realize how wrong you were. It’s embarrassing in retrospect to remember yourself passionately defending Jimmah Peanut, of all people (heck, it’s 30 years in the past and I was a dumb college kid, but it still makes me cringe).
Most people don’t challenge themselves because it can put you in a painful spot. The really sad thing is that that supposedly is what college is supposed to do – make you think about and question your beliefs. Oh, professors are eager to make you question your beliefs if you’re a religious kid raised with “old-fashioned” values, but if you arrive on campus liberal, you will hear nothing to make you question yourself. In fact, you’ll be reassured that yes, you are on the side of the angels. I didn’t break with liberalism until I was 30.
As a conservative, I have been married 32 years to a confirmed liberal professor. I would like to show her articles such as this as part of my near life-long project to moderate her hard liberal stance. But this article would be hopeless and counterproductive. Why? It is an ad hominem attack thinly disguised as a reasoned approach to a perplexing problem. Psychpaths indeed! Where is that going to get you?
“If you have some better or different ideas about strategies for conservatives or libertarians in dealing with the left’s disrespect and lack of empathy, drop it in the comment section.”
Organize and start participating in local elections and running for office. The march through the institutions and using their onw Alinsky tactics against the left would be a start. Despite logic and truth on our side, we should keep the public messages short, on topic and state them repeatedly and why. Eg. “The “free” entitlement you get today will condemn your grandchildren to indentured servitude tomorrow (and explain why).” The left only has emotional platitudes and evade when confronted with facts.
@gaymarriedabortedfetus:
Because I’ve been tolerant of your stuff for years and am tired of it. I want to live and let live, but you (well, maybe not you personally, but libs in general)keep shoving their views down my throat via the alphabet shows, curriculum in our schools, professorships in our colleges, etc. I am tired of it. I want my view heard. I want libs to have to have my view shoved down their throat 24/7 for a while. It’s very un-Christian of me, I know. I wish I were more like Christ, but I’m currently not. I want the playing field more even.
This is a disturbing article for many reasons. Equating members of a political party to “psychopaths”? Really? That’s an extremely mature thing to say. One can attempt to make that argument about any group by using the members of the fringes. I could make the same arguments about conservatives. I could cite plenty of incidents of domestic terrorism against abortion clinics, for example. Those using fear and intimidation and threats of violence to prevent doctors from providing abortions and women from seeking them. I could show you plenty of stories about hate crimes aimed against gay couples, and the prejudices against gay marriage. I feel these are serious problems but I would NEVER stoop to implying that conservatives are “psychopaths” due to the actions of a few.
Everyone knows there are fringe members of both parties, and their extremism shouldn’t be tolerated. Conservatives and liberals alike need to speak out against the death threats against members of Congress (by the way, I can’t think of a single time when conservatives were the majority in Congress and liberals sent dozens of death threats to members of Congress over legislation they don’t agree with). Members of both parties need to speak out against the hatred in our country. We all need to respect others’ opinions and eliminate the violence, fear and intimidation. Articles like this are the opposite of helping.
BrianN wrote:
Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism.
Conservativism honors individual liberty. It also values tradition. In what universe did Hitler respect individuals or liberty? How did he value tradition? Like Communism, Nazism was an extreme and deliberate break with traditional values in favor of a “new man.” Nazism was statism to the nth degree, albeit one with an emphasis on race rather than class. The individual was of no importance to the Nazis, just as the individual was worth nothing in the USSR. Only the collective mattered, whether you are talking about the ubermenschen or the untermenschen or the Masses or the Enemies of the People.
Nazism was, superficially, capitalist, but industries were controlled by the Party (rather similiar to the direction we’re headed in with corporate bail-outs). Volkswagen, remember, translates as “The People’s Car” and was developed under Hitler’s orders. Hitler provided workers with plenty of social programs; hence his popularity (until the war started).
He was as far from Burkean conservatism as it is possible to get and has much more in common with Stalin and other leftists than with any American conservative.
One more thing… I take issue with this paragraph in particular.
“The second possibility is that liberals do have the capacity to empathize with conservatives, but they do not have to do so because of the liberal bubble they mostly live in. Schools, the media, and many of the cities they live in lean left. This means that there is no incentive to understand other ideas and there are no consequences for showing disgust and ugly feelings towards conservatives.”
I’d love to see conclusive proof of the so-called “liberal media” and “liberal education” that conservatives talk about so often. I’m a college student, and went to public schools. In my entire life, I can only count 3 teachers/professors who made their political views clear. In high school, one was liberal (Honors Biology in high school, so we rarely heard her views), and one was conservative (Government/Econ teacher in high school, so we heard his views daily). In college, I’ve had ONE professor who made her views clear, and she was liberal in the area of women’s rights. It was a Women’s Health class, and we discussed abortion and the terrorism committed by right-wing extremists to prevent a medical procedure that is legal in our country.
So yeah, three teachers over 15+ years of education. That’s hardly a “liberal” education. And I have never seen any conclusive proof that the media leans to the left, especially considering garbage like Fox “News” is always thrown in my face.
I think it also goes without saying that many liberals DO live in more liberal areas, but it’s also true that many conservatives live in more conservative areas. That fact has nothing to do with anything. If you truly think that conservatives are really understanding and nothing but wonderful to liberals, you apparently don’t have eyes. Neither party respects the other as much as they should. Trying to blame one party and not the other is just pathetic.
Conservatism honors individual liberty because of the traditional values of its members. In other words, the less the sum total of traditional values and principles amongst the citizenry, the more authoritarian the government must become in order to achieve the same result.
IP “But imagining that our opponents are not merely wrong but evil and sociopathic when they are offering fairly anodyne solutions accomplishes very little.”
I’m sorry but this is where we disagree. Obama in just over a year has grabbed control of the auto industry, the health care industry, the banking industry and now student loans. They have openly claimed that they should subvert the democratic process because they can’t pass what the people clearly do not want because they don’t have TOTAL control is dangerous. To simply imply that because others claimed Bush was totalitarian means that discussion of Obama’s tactics as totalitarian should therefore be mute – makes no sense. The question of, “Is Obama grabbing more control than we should be comfortable with?” is not dependant on what Bush did or what others did before him or what other’s felt about his actions.
Thanks for the discussion. It’s clear that you believe that all is as simple as “both sides do it” and so therefore further discussion is meaningless is not something that we will be able to find common ground on.
Thank you for the discussion.
Jeff Goldstein is upset that someone wishes not to be associated with him???
The poor little set-upon consevative. That’s rich!
http://tinyurl.com/yc5ylt2
Is it not possible that a left leaning psychologist could write this exact same article with 1 change only…switching the words liberal and conservative. Of course it would post on a liberal site and there would be hundreds of comments, 98% of which would be lamenting the conservative’s lack of understanding, empathy, morals, etc etc. We really are a country very evenly divided with both sides very passionate and sincere about their views. This site generally demonizes liberals and their views. Liberal sites demonize conservatives and their views. The vicious cycle will continue, sadly for all. In my family, we have very passionate liberals, and very passionate conservatives. Luckily, we find ways to love each other and get along anyway. Too bad it seems unlikely to happen in the real world.
This article is hilarious! Did the author keep a straight face when she wrote it? Brilliant!
225. Christina
“We all need to respect others’ opinions and eliminate the violence, fear and intimidation.”
You, and your affiliates, should practice what you preach. We’ll talk again once you get there.
You guys are mind-blowing. You really, really believe this?
Please find a liberal pundit who even ***approaches*** the disrespect and lack of empathy for differing opinions (let alone general empathy for other human beings) that is daily displayed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, or Glenn Beck.
Please, prove me wrong right here.
I mean, wow.
Just…wow.
“However, the facts are these: most liberals are opposed to wars”–Some lefty dolt
Sure they are…except for WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War…all of which the liberals managed to bungle us into. That cost us about 600,000 dead…which is almost 100% of the Americans who have been killed in wars over the past 100 years.
But, other than that, liberals are real peaceniks.
Conservativism honors individual liberty.
Do you mean, by resisting integration? Or do you mean by supporting the draft, and resisting the notion of a volunteer army?
Or perhaps you’re referring to the universal love for freedom and liberty that was displayed via the Patriot Act.
Wow.
People can have reasonable disagreements over ideology – but you should at least be aware of your ideology, for Pete’s sake.
But this is absurd, and the “everyone’s an extremist” notion is counterproductive, because it allows progressive extremeism to hide behind the veneer of “everyone does it, so it must not be so bad.”
Bush, to the extent he adopted authoritarian policies, directed them at foreign enemies. Gitmo was for AQ detainees. The Patriot Act for communications with foreign enemies. The most anti-liberty aspect of Bush’s domestic policy was the TSA, staffed by civil service bureaucrats in a deal he cut with Democrats. In fact, in his domestic agenda, Bush reached across the aisle to the likes of Ted Kennedy, who stabbed him in the back as a thank you.
Obama has de facto nationalized most of the auto industry, the banking industry, and now the health care industry. He and his party have ignored the elected domestic opposion, called for supporters to “hit back twice as hard” and his top law enforcement officials have talked of the domestic opposition as dangerous. He and his party seek to reinstitute censorship and government control of the media.
One man made controversial foreign policy choices by ran a largely bipartisan domestica agenda. The other systematically excludes anyone who disagrees from his domestic agenda and has been consolidating power in the Capitol.
Does that make Obama a totalitarian? Not necessarily, but in comparing the two, Obama is a whole lot farther down that road than George W. Bush. Which doesn’t excuse Bush his failings either. But if you look at the numbers, the notion that everyone’s an extremist doesn’t hold water.
The absolute number of extremists on either side hasn’t really changed. What has changed is the scope of government, and thus the stakes. The “live-and-let-live” center is still there, and still as large as ever, but the bigger government gets, the less able anyone is to ignore it and the larger the number of centrists who have to start taking a side.
Big government is the source of the polarization, of the anger. If you want a big government, then you want more extremism, because government breeds it out of necessity. The Left is full wedded to big government because that’s the only way to implement their vision – people rarely adopt Progressive ideas of their own free will. Even the progressives generally prefer their ideas to be “adopted” by others. They deserver to be villified, because they are the villians. Knowingly or not, they are.
#237,
you should at least be aware of your ideology
Actually I’m a moderately liberal pragmatic (read #220), who’s trying to demonstrate my “empathy” for libertarian conservatism.
I was responding to #226 Donna V. The point was that to be successful, libertarian conservatism requires a strong cultural foundation which IMO, does not exist in sufficient enough quantity in most places in today’s reality.
Case in point, the real reason Goldstein gets slammed with his feelings hurt is because his professor friend is an emotional vain creature. And so is Jeff. The rest is conjecture and rationalization. Remember the discussion between R. Rummel and N.Chomsky which devolved into childish namecalling? A fine opportunity to explore human politics and psychology is wasted away into a pissing contest gibberish session.
Personally, I’d suggest a strong moderator between two strongly opinionated debators to try and keep foolish emotions at a minimum.
“However, the facts are these: most liberals are opposed to wars”–Some lefty dolt
When the Narcissist in Chief reinstates the draft as a way to reduce military spending while at the same time fighting a war he says is, “absolutely critical to America” I guess that’ll be someone elses fault. Don’t worry, though, I seriously doubt Barry can go a full four years without starting his own little war in order to prove he’s a great military thinker as well as a fearless leader in so many other ways. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find out he already has his Pancho and John characters picked out.
have a nice day
“Do you mean, by resisting integration?” – Like Robert “Sheets” Byrd and the rest of the Democratic Party?
“Or do you mean by supporting the draft, and resisting the notion of a volunteer army?” – Your buddy Charlie Rangel, a democrat just like Sheets Byrd, has been the ONLY one talking about a draft. The military DO NOT WANT a draft and strongly prefer a volunteer force as do Republicans.
“Or perhaps you’re referring to the universal love for freedom and liberty that was displayed via the Patriot Act.” – The one the Dem Congress and Obama just extended without amendment or reform?
I’d really like to know what the f— is wrong with people like you. I really would. Is it some kind of organic brain disorder? A chemical imbalance? You’re massively, incandescently ignorant and yet so smug. How in God’s name can anyone reach such a state? What do you read for information? Do you have the remotest comprehension of how ignorant you are? “Wow” indeed.
235. jx
“Please find a liberal pundit who even ***approaches*** the disrespect and lack of empathy for differing opinions (let alone general empathy for other human beings) that is daily displayed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, or Glenn Beck.”
You don’t have cable? Blitzer, Olbermann, Jennings, Maher, basically all cable networks except FOX. You must be young as CNN in my day was always referred in my family’s house as “Clinton’s News Network.” The overwhelming public and private media networks had become nothing more than the democrat party’s propaganda organ and has been for a very long time. Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck are simply the results of a vast swath of Americans having a voice after being denied their views having an honest channel after all these years.
Yeah, yeah.. you hate free speech and thought the monopoly was secured, but so did your predecessors.
I’m disappointed in this pathetic argument, Helen. I listen. What I’m getting from the Left is a herd of ideas about how to move the country toward greener energy (and consequently less dependence on foreign oil), toward lower health care premiums (which currently eat up 20% of our family’s gross income) and toward some kind of fiscal sanity after the midterm elections and the crisis of the Great Recession has passed.
When I listen to conservatives, I hear a lot of bullshit about socialism and OMGPANIC HEALTHCARE REFORM WILL KILL US ALL. I’m not persuaded or convinced by such heavy-handed rhetoric. It could be…just maybe…that liberals are listening and simply disagree with you. Maybe they aren’t unempathetic psychopaths, but a diverse vibrant group of thinkers who wholeheartedly disagree with your approach.
I’m confused about conservatism in this country at the moment. Are we Goldwater types or Palin populists? Do we worship at the altar of Adam Smith or Jerry Falwell? There’s diversity in conservatism, but the voices screaming the loudest are the Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck types and frankly, I find them fodder for late night comics, not national policy.
After the election, people were talking about a conservative death spiral. I think when you start comparing your political adversaries to socialists and psychopaths, it’s a fairly sad commentary on the state of conservatism.
It’s hilarious that members of the GOP, which has made contempt the basis for everything they do since 1994, now whine about how unfair it is that Democrats have the nerve to stand up to them. Want some cheese to go with your cheap whine, Helen?
that’s exquisite!
243. Becky
s
Please explain those “herd of ideas”, and provide sources of information. Much appreciated.
244. cleare BS
“It’s hilarious that members of the GOP, which has made contempt the basis for everything they do since 1994, now whine about how unfair it is that Democrats have the nerve to stand up to them.”
Which members of the GOP?
What basis since 1994 do you speak?
Nerve to stand up to who and on what grounds? What do democtats actually “stand for”?
You speak in sublime generalities just like most obtuse democrats I know.
To be frank, you dislike having your world view being challenged and cannot produce a logical arguement to back it up. Like all US pigressives, who are morally and intellectually bankrupt, you fall back to emotional false outrage and hate.
WWII was caused by a combination of ruthless demands for reparations after WWI and an utter failure to confront Hitler before he became a serious threat. That said, once it started, there was no way for America to remain neutral; we tried it, and the result was that the Japanese dragged us into their war. Fact is, isolationism doesn’t work; we are a global power whether we like it or not, and that means neutrality is impossible. If we try to remain neutral in the struggle between freedom and tyranny, whether that tyranny comes in the form of a political ideology or a religion, we will inevitably get dragged into somebody else’s war, and we will probably be sneak attacked in the process.
The lefty trolls pour in to prove Helen’s point that lefties haven’t the slightest notion what conservatism is but sure love to dump vitriol on it.
Of course, where were they supposed to learn anything about it? Not in college. You get fully versed in leftism there but won’t know the first thing about conservatism when you graduate. From the lefty blogosphere or Bill Maher? No. That’s where we learn that conservatism is hatred for blacks, gays, and the poor.
You really can’t blame them for their ignorance. But you can blame them for persisting in it with a vehemence, a self-congratulation, and a willingness to let the hackneyed ritual of publicly displaying pseudo-outrage substitute for real understanding and substantial criticism. Because, although it’s so much easier and more gratifying to conceal it from themselves and just plow ahead, deep down they know that they don’t know.
I don’t recall Glen Beck calling anyone anything that he could not prove by the persons actions and associations…..
Problem seems to be that the left/liberals/liars/communist/socialists etc are upset because they are being exposed and cannot hide under the same ole rock…so they do things and then blame the right…
Sharpton is a good example of this hate mongering from the left..and the “tape” that he heard/saw that does not exist…now that was a hilarious , deer in the headlights moment….
232
In my family, we have very passionate liberals, and very passionate conservatives. Luckily, we find ways to love each other and get along anyway. Too bad it seems unlikely to happen in the real world.
That’s great. That’s also your family. 99.99999% of liberals are complete strangers to me and I’m happy to keep it that way. I could give a fig if a single one of them survives the next 24 hours.
For the purposes of my life, they are completely superfluous, except when they are being annoying, which is every time they open those sewers they call their mouths.
Have I made my complete and utter disgust and contempt for them clear enough here? I don’t want to dialogue with them, I want them to have their own separate country so I can think as infrequently about their opinions as I currently think about the opinions of the average citizen of Luxembourg.
Wait, so someone whose name Goldstein lists as an endorsement writes a private email to ask to have his endorsement withdrawn and you think the appropriate response is to ignore it or, worse, make the disavowed endorsement more prominent?
And then you whine that the issue is the cruelty suffered by poor poor Jeff Goldstein?
What planet are you people from?
Oh, and as to the ability of liberals to empathize – wasn’t it just this summer when the sentiment of empathy was a bad thing to conservatives? At least when practiced by…er…liberals like Supreme Court Justices.
You people are hilarious. And forgetful!
If you can make a case for giving empathy, civility & respect to people who support the use of torture & illegal invasions – both crimes that were punished with hanging at Nuremburg – & who see nothing wrong with calling a moderate-right Administration “socialist” as they quiver with dread at the impending menace of FEMA death-camps, then please, go right ahead.
I think the relatives of the folks that have endured the fatal results of such “interesting” opinions would be very interested in hearing what kinds of rationales are used to justify inherently barbaric & malevolent ideas like those – assuming any of their fans actually had the guts to defend said ideas to their faces. I rather doubt Cheney, Yoo or Addington have any plans to go to Iraq any time soon to prove me wrong.
As for guessing at the political leanings of sociopaths, it’s a rather parlous canard – they’re both depressingly predictable & well-known. Go ahead, look it up – but be warned: you’re not going to enjoy the results.
“Conservativism honors individual liberty. It also values tradition. In what universe did Hitler respect individuals or liberty? How did he value tradition?”
I imagine Hitler would’ve been infuriated at the idea that he wasn’t valuing Germany’s traditions when he spent enormous energy in maintaining &/or reviving them – from pagansm to defending German womanhood via “Church, Kitchen, Children” to the cult of nature – & he most certainly despised “decadent” modern art & jazz … almost as much as he hated liberalism. He saw himself as figting the good fight for Germany’s liberation from an imminent Jewish-Bolshevik plot to conquer the world – nonsense to be sure, but in his opinion he WAS fighting for liberty. Nazi Germany also worshipped the individual in the form of the Great Leader as a template of the nation as a whole.
Conservatives generously supported Hitler – his party would’ve gone bankrupt many times over without them – while liberals under Hitler either went deep underground, fled Germany entirely or were branded “Political Enemies” & given a free one-way trip to camp.
“Obama in just over a year has grabbed control of the auto industry, the health care industry, the banking industry and now student loans.”
Bailing out banks isn’t controlling them – nor is buying up part of GM, nor is rewriting laws on health-care or student-loans. Nor is there anything “totalitarian” about using existing legislative means to pass a (very watered-down) bill, especially one that’s jam-packed with policies from the opposition-party.
These are exactly the sort of basic PoliSci 101 fallacies that make it very hard for anyone who actually has a basic understanding of politics to take contemporary American right-wingers seriously – & where they were once rare occaisions for hilarity, they’re now the norm.
“Mock them. Make fun of them. Ridicule them. Get people to laugh at them at every opportunity. Be sarcastic.”
You sure you want to go there? “An American Carol” versus Colbert Report? HALF HOUR NEWS HOUR versus The Daily Show? Not to mention which side actually has a robust ability to laugh at its own shortcomings … nah, I’m just some fuzzy-headed progressive know-nothing who’s blowing smoke … go ahead, take your butter-knife to a gunfight – I’m sure it’ll be a cake-walk.
Food for thought–Ann Coulter says (lefties) are people who don’t read anything -instead they are people who just watch tv,listen to the propaganda, and vote based on their urges.
I have heard it also said-that lefties are people who don’t understand economics or human nature.
And I know a lefty or two that are great people who let their hearts get in the way of their heads.
And I also know a lefty or two who are missing a screw upstairs–tin foil hat types-like the US is responsible for 9/11 in order to collect the insurance.
Some lefties feel life has wronged them (malcontents)and the only way to create justice for themselves and others is through government control (they might be the worst kind because they are unrelenting and vicious).
Evan Sayet says lefties look back at history and see only conflict and in their eyes the only way to avoid conflict then is to make good look like evil and right look like wrong-and then there is no need for conflict.
One thing is for sure Obama hates the U.S.-he thinks its racist, corrupt, and that it favors those in power-and through redistribution of wealth he wants to change it —our forefathers called that tyranny!! Obama is also arrogant & narcissistic with no real world experience at anything -except radicalism-a dangerous combination.
Only one thing is for sure -leftiests are out of touch with reality-and as MARK LEVIN is famous for saying–don’t try to understand them-just defeat them !!!
I’ll have ~empathy~ for liberals’ positions/viewpoints as soon as they don’t threaten to undermine the principles on which this country was founded, namely SMALLEST GOVERNMENT POSSIBLE and PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES.
Remember the Declaration of Independence? Here’s a refresher, emphasis mine:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]”
Just lately, the governed most vocally do NOT consent to what is being done by their government (read the polls viz: TARP, stimulus, health care, to name a few).
It is taxation without representation, and it’s the same reason we threw off the British yoke way back when.
And liberals wonder why we object to being called “teabaggers.” On mainstream media. Why we are portrayed as radical fringe elements, akin to neo-Nazi skinheads. On mainstream media. The numbers of those of us disaffected who gather in major cities is grossly underrepresented, if not blatantly lied about. On mainstream media.
They KNOW we’re not trying to attempt some kind of fascist takeover. They’re just being bullies in reverse. Frankly, it’s my belief they’re essentially self-destructive, and they’re trying to take everyone else down along with them.
Read any liberal blog — any comment section on any mainstream media story — and observe the profusion of profanity and obscenity directed toward conservatives. Read the same on conservative sites, and you won’t see near that level, if at all.
Feh. At this point, I’ll ~empathize~ when the whole mindset is changed. I’m not holding my breath.
I think what we need to do is to consider liberals just as we do teenagers. They run on emotion, not rationale, governed by hormones, hence the preoccupation with all things sexual or homosexual. All their pet projects appeal to emotion, to fairness, but like a child who does not prevail, are known to throw horrible tantrums. Liberalism is a disease of the immature who want what they want without ever considering who is going to pay for it. Time for a huge spanking and time out. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Hmmm…comment 244 seems to support the lack-of-empathy hypothesis.
As many others have agreed, I think it is the near-total lack of exposure to conservative ideas in higher education that leads to liberal blinders. And I suspect (though I have no research to support this) that it is because conservatives self-screen themselves out of the process. Either a)they’re socially conservative right wing nuts, who tend to be anti-intellectual, or b) they’re just fiscally conservative, in which case they’re more likely to be out running a business or getting into politics.
It should be a conscious goal of fiscal conservatives to place themselves in the education pipeline, to teach personal responsibility and counter the nanny-state doctrine that fills modern classrooms.
Mote. Beam. Etc.
@214. Jake: – I have been active in politics for nearly 50 years, thank you.
I think I’ll roll the dice (no, really), and call “B.S.” on that one.
- Historically, each political party has compromised with the other when they had to.
Ah, so now it wasn’t just “majority rules”, eh? You people crack me up when you’re caught with your pants down.
- It’s a mistake to conclude that because no Republicans voted for the health care bill, it didn’t represent any willingness to compromise.
Again, I heartily agree. As I’ve already said, the root of ALL the Republic’s problem right now is the unwarranted, unwise, unnecessary, socially suicidal compromise with the collectivist agenda. It’s a cancer. You don’t compromise with cancer. You irradiate it or poison it. You don’t coddle it until it kills you.
- And I recommend you read the entire article about Haidt that Smith links to.
You probably shouldn’t bother trying to lecture me on Haidt, chum. “Fifty years in politics” and you never learned to do your homework? Why does this not surprise me…
#238. JMH.
I confess, it’s hard to have empathy for conservatives who say things like this. In what meaningful sense has Obama nationalized the banking industry or the health care industry? His plan forces people to buy insurance from private insurers! This just isn’t what “nationalizing” means. And as I said before, he didn’t ignore the domestic opposition, he spent a year trying to get them involved, and they refused to the point of voting against their own ideas! And apparently the domestic opposition is dangerous, since they’re throwing rocks through windows and planning to kill policemen.
And really, “reinstitute censorship and government control of the media”? When was that in force before? And if the media is so danged liberal already, why would he need to institute government control?
Really, if you want liberals to have empathy for your ideas, you need to join us on planet Earth.
“Samizdat:
To those of you having difficulty coming to terms with Nazism being a left wing ideology, Hitler didn’t call it national socialism because he was a free market capitalist.
”
That’s why so many Jews are liberals, dear .
Because the Nazis were left wing. That’s the ticket.
Seriously. I really would enjoy a discussion from either side and bring this thing to a realistic place but the unintended humor of so much of this is almost unbearable.
Maybe I’ll try another day. But the “Alas, liberals are so intolerant” followed by a vast majority of liberal-bashing “dittos” is just hysterical. Conservatives should consider this in reverse. It would be ridculous in that direction , also.
Real people focus on real things. Not victimization cries and a pretty deep show of the thing they’re supposed to be opposing – intolerance. If it’s a party game, OK, maybe. Not if people want to be serious. I appreciate getting things posted, however.
And while I’m here, a reminder – sometimes it’s just about people. Not ideology. When William Buckley and William Safired died, there were many tributes to them from pundits, bloggers and posters. Those types are missed. Jeff Goldstein is no William Buckley. He may be the finest fellow in the world to his friends, but his site is like hell unless you drink the Koolaid and loathe what the regulars loathe.
Miss Nicky, you should read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. The historical case against fascism being in any sense “conservative” or “right wing” is very strong.
Christina: Does a fish know that its wet? When I was in college, my professors seemed pretty mainstream to me – but I was a liberal then. When I went back to grad school in my late 20′s, I had started to rethink my earlier beliefs – and I couldn’t believe the blatant leftist bias on campus. Did things really shift so far leftward in the space of 8 years? Or was it that only the people outside of the consensus notice the bias?
In college, I’ve had ONE professor who made her views clear, and she was liberal in the area of women’s rights. It was a Women’s Health class, and we discussed abortion and the terrorism committed by right-wing extremists to prevent a medical procedure that is legal in our country.
Ask yourself honestly, how would that professor -and the rest of the class reacted if someone had said, “I certainly do not condone anybody bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortionists, but I believe very strongly that abortion is the taking of an innocent life and a grave moral wrong?” I can easily imagine what your professor and this class were like, because I sat in similar ones – everyone sits around and agrees with each other that, oh, yes, these right wing fanatics are nuts – and the discussion goes no deeper than that. You unwittingly illustrate Helen’s point perfectly. I’m not asking you to agree with pro-lifers. Have you ever honestly considered their objections, tried to see their POV? It’s much easier to just slap a label on them, agree that they all want to bomb abortion clinics, say they don’t care about babies once the babies are born (a manifestly untrue statement, I’ve found) and bask in the approval of your friends as you condemn them.
I’ve switched sides on this over the years, and lost “tolerant” liberal friends because of it. It wasn’t enough to say “I think you’re very wrong on this particular issue, but you’re still my friend,” no, nothing less than complete approval and applause would do. I’ve been on the left and on the right and when it comes to true tolerance, there is no comparison. Leftists are far more likely to break off friendships if you don’t tow the party line. If you disagree with them, you can’t be a Good Person.
No, I didn’t. What I did was not take it down, a) because it wasn’t mine, and b) because I found it well within the bounds of political commentary. That Lady Liberty is anthropomorphized, and that a violation against one’s will is consonant with “rape,” suggests to me that, though pointed, there is nothing “alarming” about the cartoon. Besides, a heated discussion had begun over it, and some of the questions raised I found useful.
I am consistently amused that people try to claim I run some sort of hate site. My site moves from academic topics to political observations to surreal tales of an armadillo on hallucinogens. That I’m (as one frothing commenter notes) “famous for threatening to ‘cockslap’ people” is thanks in large part to people like that commenter, who evidently love the word “cockslap” so much that they use it every time my name is mentioned. Me, I used it in response to a guy who suggested that, as a fey stay-at-home-dad, I was most likely hiding under a table, breastfeeding my son.
That suggested to me that this commenter erroneously believed I had milk-producing breasts and that I was lactating. I offered a corrective to his notion that I was a woman, namely, that I’d meatslap him across the cheek if it would help settle the issue.
What is ironic about these claims, though, is that the people offering them don’t even recognize that they are engaging in the very kind of behavior Dr. Helen points to here: they wish to demonize by way of controlling a narrative, one that they write and use to define their “enemies” by.
Have at it. Fortunately, lots of people are beginning to notice that, to many on the left, just about everyone who disagrees with them is either a hater, a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a misogynist, or some sort of gun-toting religious nutjob educated in a single room Arkansas school house in between crop rotations and negra lynchin’s.
And that makes them suspicious of the supposedly “good” people launching the indictments.
In response to Dr Helen’s article here, I linked to this piece, which I wrote for Hot Air a while back. In it, I take many of the “pragmatists” on the “right” to task for not only accepting the conditions for discourse of progressives, but actively aiding them in the institutionalization of the kinds of incoherent linguistic premises that lead inexorably to a set of “progressive” epistemologies.
Not really the stuff of a two-dimensional “hate” site, if I do say so myself. But what you can’t argue away, you shout down. Or, in the case of Kiteley, shun.
That’s today’s left-liberal.
#231. Twisted_Colour wins the reality award.
This is about Jeff Goldstein and the repercussions for his own freely chosen behavior. Politeness begets politeness, and snarky rudeness begets the same.
This has little if anything to do with liberals, conservatives, Obama, Jesus, Hayek or Freudo-Jungian-Marxist-Randian psychoanalysis as a generalized whole.
Helen must be laughing her head off now.
Liberals also have the annoying habit of assuming everyone they like must be liberal, because they think only liberals are likable. I’ve had bosses who, without knowing anything about my political stance (or the political stance of other people in the office), have come into work blasting Bush, or gushing about Obama and expecting other people to agree with them. My old boss was entirely unaware that she worked in an office full of conservatives, because she had conversations with us about books and movies and we were all clearly literate and educated and didn’t fit into her cartoonish stereotype of conservatives.
I’ve also had conservative bosses (the first one bought me a round-trip plane ticket to fly home and visit my mother when she was dying of cancer, my first inkling that conservatives weren’t the selfish, nasty people I had always thought they were). It took me quite a while to discover they were, in fact, conservative, because they didn’t wear their political beliefs on their sleeves. Libs, on the other hand, tend to be pathetically eager to bray “I’m liberal! I’m PC! I Care!” 5 minutes after you meet them. And they want to know if you are, so they know what slot to put you in. Conservative bosses are basically interested in whether or not you do your job.
(I might add that because of the neighborhood I live in, I am frequently mistaken for a liberal. I think of myself as living behind enemy lines.;-)
Oh, wow! Something worthy of comment in the first post…
“Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature” attributed to liberals is a laugher given today’s Republican Strip Club scandal, something no Democrats would approve of from Republicans or Democrats.
Examples of self-control like this sort of burst the myth in favor of the reality.
MissNicky,
Lots of sites are hell unless you drink the koolaid and loathe what the regulars loathe. On BOTH sides of the political divide.
You have the gaul to tell me to join you on Planet Earth? Obama spent a year trying to get Republicans to give him bipartisan cover for his ideas, not theirs. Either you are a wet-behind-the-ears pup who’s never seen this sort of behavior (pay attention, you’ll come across it sooner or later in your life, and if you don’t see it coming somebody will snooker you big-time and deal you a serious career setback), or else you’re a blind-to-your-bias Confirmed Liberal that we’ve been talking about in this thread. Or maybe just a troll, but most trolls don’t have anything more than talking points, and you aren’t just spouting those, so I think you’re genuine.
If you seriously think Obama, Pelosi or Reid had any interest whatsoever in the ideas and policies the GOP was putting forward, you just aren’t paying attention. That was all political theatre, his attempt to fool folks like you into thinking the GOP is a bunch of obstructionists who don’t want to solve any problems. Looks like it worked in your case, but it’s not going over so well with Independants. Seen any surveys lately? But that’s not the subject here.
GOP solutions to health care included things like tort reform and the break up of regional monoplies enforced by State insurance commissions that exclude competitors, giving the favored corporations a lucrative market free of serious competitions. Neither of those was even considered by Obama and Co. Expanding Medicare, a program already headed for bankruptcy, was an absolute non-starter with the (suddenly, pleasantly surprisingly) fiscally responsible congressional GOP, but that was non-negotiable for Obama and Co – they insisted on expanding Medicare, thereby making it almost certain to go broke and utterly fail.
Look, the list is long, and you’ve probably stopped reading already, but the truth, the observable truth, is that Obama had no interest in any of the critical elements of the GOP plan for health care. He didn’t need them anyway, they were just a convenient boogieman for him to complain about. He had the numbers, so he figured he’d just Rahm it through. And he did. Without a single Republican vote.
Seriously, you’ve never heard of the “Fairness Doctrine?” Seriously? You’re kidding…
259. If you read the Old Testament, you’d realize that Jews as a collective tend to have horrendously bad judgment. Doing the exact same thing that got their progenitors killed is par for the course, even as they make decisions that on the surface seem different. While the Israelis will not stand idly by for Iran to nuke them, the Diaspora Jews are still in love with the philosophy that spawned the greatest Jew-killers of all time.
That’s why so many Jews are liberals, dear .
Because the Nazis were left wing. That’s the ticket.
No, dear, they’re left-wing because their ancestors were persecuted by the Czarist regime in Russia and when they came here, the Democrats were indeed more welcoming to them – and other Ellis Island emigrants than the GOP was. That cemented the Jews in the Democratic Party, although, ironically, as Paul Johnson points out in his “History of the Jews:
“He (FDR) was both anti-semitic, in a mild way, and ill informed. When the topic (Hitler’s persecution of the Jews) came up at the Casablanca Conference, he spoke of the ‘understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely that while they represented a small part of the population, over 50% of the lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, college professors in Germany were Jews’ (the actual figures were 16.3, 10.9, 2.6, and 0.5%)” p. 504
“The pro-Zionist presidential assistant, David Niles, later asserted: ‘There are serious doubts in my mind that Israel would have come into being if Roosevelt had lived.’”
Truman was genuinely pro-Israel. Obama, however, doesn’t appear terribly sympathetic – not that that bothers today’s Leftists, who are more likely to favor the Palestinians.
Not to mention that, like you, dear, they’ve bought the line that Nazism was “right-wing” hook, line and sinker.
A PJM columnist recently reported on a leftist rally in LA. One protester held a sign calling on Jews to be neutered. But sure, go ahead and worry about a mythical religious right that is supposedly threatening to drag Jews to the baptismal fonts instead. All that proves is that most Jews are really not very smart when it comes to politics.
Re: the blue eyes brown eyes documentary:
Rachel said, “But at some point, many of the children who were deemed by the powers-that-be to be “superior” would have begun to realize that it was unfair. They would have had empathy. What level of unfairness empathy kicked in would be different for each child. But needless to say, if the teacher asked them to do something really awful to the inferior children, at some point, the superior children, at least the ones with empathy, would have refused.”
Yes, we see intolerance on both sides. But the reason that Obama’s approval rating has tanked to the point where more disapprove than approve of him is because most “on the left” do have empathy that is beginning to kick in. It’s not really “empathy” as much it is a realization that they are the ones about to get screwed. So call it empathy or selfishness, they aren’t so blinkered as to follow Obama into the abyss. As such, they are distancing themselves from those on the left who masturbate over their hate fetish of Sarah Palin and all of the people that they believe she represents. All that is left of the left are those, who are like the little boy with the glasses, clinging to the belief that they are somehow superior simply by the fact that they reject the ideas of conservatives. They can not let go. And they won’t.
Just like a ugly girl who has a hot looking guy who treats her like crap, going out every night and coming home with lipstick on the collar, they will continue to believe it when he says, “I love ya baby, I’ll buy you the moon…hey, can you give me a few more bucks?” They will believe, not because it’s healthy or real, but because life is better with the lie than it is without.
Miss Nicky, dear: Take a good look at these photos:
http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20100320
Then come back and tell me more about the Jew-hating wingnuts on the right.
@257. goy:You probably shouldn’t bother trying to lecture me on Haidt, chum. “Fifty years in politics” and you never learned to do your homework?
I was supposed to know about your blog? Really? But thanks for the link: kind of a funny title, and I bow to your superior ability to draw unwarranted conclusions from Haidt’s work.
As for the 50 years–you got me, it’s only 46.
“The left are fully 14 year old petulant perpetual adolescents. Unfortunately, we can’t ground them or send them to their rooms. They’re never going to grow up. We’re just going to have to survive them.” -Jbl
I suppose that explains the temper tantrum the left through when Obama tried to shove health care reform down the throat of America. I suppose that explains why the left took teabags and began to wave them around around crying out about a supposed government takeover.
Oh, wait…That was Republicans and, more specifically, Tea Party groups.
Ms. Smith,
So you want kids to be more exposed to conservative and libertarian values? Encourage them to read more sci-fi. I say read, and not watch movies. Avatar, despite its beyond brilliant special effects, was a pile of steaming anti-capitalist, anti-technlogical, anti-American claptrap. A lot of written sci-fi is very libertarian. Not conservative, since with most of this stuff, the characters’ personal lives is their own business, just so long as it doesn’t prevent them from being heros.
Where to start? Try Allen Steele’s Coyote trilogy, David Weber’s Honor Harrington (the heroine’s society is very capitalist and freedom oriented) and Schism series. Also, though this might be bit heavy going for high-schoolers, but not for college kids, is Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle. It’s historical fiction, not sci-fi, but it gives a very lusty shout of approval for the development of modern science and capitalism back in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Also on the list should be two old standbys by the late, great Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for love. Also don’t forget the ORIGINAL Starship Troopers novel, not he comic-book kitsch movie, even though it was fun.
As for movies, the only ones I can think of right now are the first Matrix movie, and any of the Star Trek movies. I know a lot of conservatives think they promote a hidden socialist agenda, but they very heavily push the ideas of individual freedom and responsibility.
M. Gallagher
ABOLISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THAT SHOWS HOW EMPATHETIC CONSERVATIVES ARE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
ALSO REPEAL FOODSTAMPS, THAT’LL TEACH THOSE POORS
Miss Nicky at 259,
Thanks for your condescending reply that confirms your warped ignorance. Nazism is national socialism and because you can not escape that fact you adolescently backhand it as some sort of joke you don’t need to respond to. Typically progressive. Typically not in touch with fact or reality.
Like all progressives I have encountered before, can’t handle the truth and your own misperception of the Nazis. They actually ascend out of the same swamp that Marx and Engles waded from. Intellectually completely pathetic, and not at all surprising.
Run along dear.
A young man who is not a liberal has no heart.
An old man who is not a conservative has no brain.
The Art of Stupid
Based on decades of observation, it’s long been my view that the dumbest people tend to call others stupid and when they really don’t grasp something the ungraspable is deemed even more stupid.
Two examples of those who have developed stupidity into an art form are Frank Rich and James Lovelock.
Frank Rich, irascible New York Times columnist and commentator on American politics and society, has over the years demonstrated a remarkably obvious disconnect with both.
Rich’s mindset is leftist, markedly so to the extent that he perceives all events which reflect the conservative viewpoint as being marks of the devil or of Adolph Hitler or both. His latest failure concerns the lividity, not the death pallor but the blanching fury of the majority of Americans toward the abomination of obamacare.
Rich, being smarter than the rest of us peons and much smarter than us Neanderthals who call ourselves conservatives, knows exactly why we opposed and still oppose the nation’s excursion into socialized medicine and the reason is not what normal people might think. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1601)
Indeed, any liberal is, temperamentally, a Hitler or Stalin (after all, they were basically allies, except for the fighting) in wait – if not resisted, he/she, will add to the momentum of the totalitarian tide that is already engulfing us, and that’s why we need to round them all up. Adam Yoshida has a great idea on what to do with them: macrowaves. As in microwaves, but bigger. Not the waves themselves, because that would be a radio, but the oven — big enough for a person. So the “progressive” goes in, gets microwaved (macrowaved), SPLOOSH, and the next “progressive” is sent in to clean it up (they love the environment so much, let them clean) before beep! beep! SPLOOSH! Adam Yoshida is brilliant and I want to have his babies but I can’t because I am a man.
Rachel, if you honestly believe that Obama is doing things so far beyond the pale that he exceeds the statism of prior administrations, I can’t convince you otherwise. However, for everyone else I would note that his health care reform plan is no different from Mitt Romney’s, the bailout of the banks was largely under Bush (and, according to nearly all economists from accross the political spectrum, saved our economy from complete meltdown); the car company bailout was a lousy idea, but is no different than what was done for Chrysler in the past and is also no different in scale from the system of agricultural subsidies promoted by GOP and Democratic administrations for many years. “Everybody does it” is not a defense, but an accurate description of our world. You are suffering from confirmation bias — you want to see Obama as a totalitarian, and it is thus not surprising that the evidence you find supports that position. But this is why extreme points of view persist — lack of introspection and historical perspective.
Samizdat:
I am always amused at how Progressives run away from Fascism as a leftwing phenomenon. They lose an opportunity to tout more successful Socialism. For example the standard of living in the Soviet Union never reached the level of Nazi Germany in 1939. At least the Germans actually got something in trade for their freedom. The Nazis created an egalitarian society, with universal healthcare, high standard of living and they even supported the Palestinians. And remember the Soviets murdered more of their citizens before Hitler took power then Hitler murdered in his career. Fascist Italy was a better place to live then East Germany, Cuba or Venezuela. Fascist Spain and Portugal rescued Jews while Stalin made the Holocaust possible. Even Fascist Argentina took in Jews even though Peron liked he Nazis.
You have to wonder why Progressives don’t know these things.
#279 Berlet98 — Two examples of those who have developed stupidity into an art form are Frank Rich and James Lovelock.
Except, of course, that Lovelock is correct. His point is that humans lack the requisite skill to band together to fight something that falls outside the threat radar for most.
For argument assume that AGW is real, imminent, will do great harm, and scientists can’t seem to get this across for any variety of reasons (e.g. it’s unpopular.) If humans are unable to politically come to an agreement, little gets done.
What he’s saying is that humans as an organism, in the aggregate, aren’t prepared.
Ironically, you’re calling Lovelock stupid on a site where the topic you’re replying to posits that US liberals and conservatives can’t possibly agree on many levels because the other side is too alien (first post alone said liberals were psychopaths.) If you can’t get US political factions to agree it’s not looking good for an entire planet full of them. It’s is a bit like Nash’s theorems re self-interest applied to groups.
This, of course, was his only point.
Is the purpose of your site to look for the stupidest arguments around and do an ‘onion’ thing? The site name suggests this, but your post seemed to lack onion-like humour and was… ummm… never mind.
Many of the intolerant left have character disorders such as psychopathy. When they make accusations and use name calling they are PROJECTING their own motives without realizing it. The worst response one can make to such accusations is to defend or explain because that only causes them to project more.
The best ways to respond are:
1) Turn it back on them. If they say “You’re mean” respond with “That’s a mean thing to say.” If they say “You’re so judgmental” respond with “Tha’s so judgmental of you.” If they say “You’re a racist” respond with “What a biased racist statement to make.” This turns it back on them and highlights that they are projecting.
2) Instantly attack with accusations of your own, such as “You are un-American, a traitor to your country, and a racist.” Make them defend. Remember: the one who defends and explains loses.
@272. Anonymous (Jake): – I was supposed to know …
Know? Pff… hah! You’ve already demonstrated that you’re not even cognizant of commonly known facts – like the fact that reconciliation was never, never, NEVER intended to shield controversial legislation, much less to ram through Amendment-class expansions to Congress’ powers.
Know? No dear, you were supposed to be curious.
What’s the left’s attack meme about Sarah Palin? Oh yeah… she has no intellectual curiosity. Heh.
Pot, call your office; Kettle has something for you. Meanwhile…
- … I bow to your superior ability to draw unwarranted conclusions …
Bow if you must. But save the unsupported claims for your credulous ilk.
If the English language were to be allocated only a single word to describe leftist behavior, that word would be adolescent.
Goldstein posted a cartoon
Small point of order – no he did not, I did. I have posting privileges.
It is a political cartoon that hinges on the word “consent”.
I am curious!
Politeness begets politeness, and snarky rudeness begets the same.
I’m sorry, but you haven’t been paying attention.
Non-leftists can be polite until the cows come home and it makes little difference to the Left.
Or maybe you missed the DC TEA Party where false claims of “racist slurs” being shouted is an ongoing meme in the media and on Left blogsites.
Liberalism is a mental sickness. There are a number of books on the subject but two recent ones are well worth reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550062/ref=nosim/thecrimsonbirdbo
Remember that there are two primary forces in this world – good and evil. Liberalism, however, refuses to accept that there are moral absolutes. The concept of moral equivalency allows them to believe whatever evil idea fits their agenda.
Liberals do not use logic and reason. They live in a fantasy world that is based on feelings and emotions. Truth is irrelevant. Facts are spun to agree with their ideas.
Conservatives must learn that they hold the high road of morality, logic, and reason. They must not legitimize left wing ideology by debating it as an equal but opposing world view. One cannot debate liberalism using logic and reason anyway, since there are no common points of agreement.
In any compromise between good and evil, only evil wins.
Samizdat
I’m condescendng? I think I was sarcastic. Guilty on that, yes. If I had been condescending, I would echo a lot of the one-sided things said here about liberals and make it about conservatives, but I dislike that style very much. (I may bore people wuth my theory that we should all be annoyed with fools who do these things on our own side, too but I’m on this one specific subject.)
I just ran out of patience on the very partisan notion that the Nazis were “left-wing” or that liberals are much like Hitler, that came from some posters. I was sarcastic about a glib rewriting of history. Of couse, racism or anti-semitism can be on either side. There’s no box bigotry lives in. But I think it wouold be a very hard sell to say the KKK, George Lincoln Rockwell, and people in that category are “left-wing”. (And for heave’s sake, that’s not to connect them to sane RWers. )
The link to photos from a rally with anti-Jewish signs from extreme LWers (apparently) was chilling. For more on that subject, a good place for current details is the ADL site.
Unfortunately, some may not appreciate ADL’s work because they have criticized the hyperbole and overuse of “Nazi” and “Holocaust” references by all kinds of politicians and pundits. They were particularly critical of Glenn Beck and they recently wrote a letter to House Republicans protesting their use of Holocaust imagery in the health care debate.
You want to look openminded, tolerant and respectful since in a show of irony, it’s claimed that liberals are not ? That’s a wonderful place to start.
Anti-Semitism in the US – there is no ONE side here for these extremists. The list ranges from David Duke and Fred Phelps to
Neo-Nazis to Louis Farrakhan.
http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/default.htm
Also – the letter to House Republicans:
http://www.adl.org/main_Holocaust/Letter-to-Minority-Leader-re-Nazi-Imagery.htm
I hope that helps.
Helen Smith writes: “They are not exposed to right-leaning and libertarian ideas. For example, how many classes at school are teaching about the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, and Rand?”
This is by design. Liberalism has infected all American institutions; the educational system, the media, Hollywood, etc. This is a war of ideas. The problem is that progressives have a long term, well thought out agenda. They are very patient. This has been going on world wide for hundreds of years and in the United States since Roosevelt.
We naively thought that ideas such as Communism and Socialism had been disproved forever and would reside on the ash heap of history. These evil ideas are a force in them and will never go away.
If we are to preserve our freedoms that so many Americans have fought and died defending, we must realize that this is a war that must be fought wherever these ideas exist.
I find it sad that you have to have rules of engagement on your comments section for an article that was clearly directed at conservatives, then I realized that the one flawed part of this piece was the omission of those that fan the fires of liberalism, the George Soros’ of the left, who do not believe a word of it, but are mere puppet masters waiting to capitalize on the liberal mindset. These greedy distorted people that drive the misinformed into a frenzy of hate and delusion and make money off their ignorance. They read these pieces to develop their attack strategies, so I now understand the rules of engagement.
@283. G.L. Alston: – … the topic you’re replying to posits that US liberals and conservatives can’t possibly agree on many levels because the other side is too alien (first post alone said liberals were psychopaths.)
Alston, here’s a suggestion: try actually reading the articles you before using them to construct your specious polemics.
Dr. Helen “posits” nothing remotely resembling the straw man you describe. Nowhere does she claim – or even infer – that either side views the other as “alien”. When you finally get around to reading it, you’ll discover that the various explanations suggested for leftists’ uncivil behavior are (1) a mild form of a well-known personality disorder, (2) no incentive to understand anything outside their sheltered environment, (3) no tangible consequences for their lies, vitriol and childish acts of ridicule and (4) plain old, garden-variety ignorance, i.e., lack of a diverse education.
As far as Haidt’s actual research goes, it demonstrates quite clearly and unequivocally that an individual possessed of a selective moral framework – i.e., a morality based overwhelmingly on “fairness” and “caring” – is susceptible to the Utopian siren song of collectivist ideologies, where human nature is idealized through logically unsupportable and historically discredited fantasy.
Conversely, an individual possessed of a comprehensive moral framework – which includes and values the two ethics of “fairness” and “caring” – recognizes the inherent fallacies in Utopian collectivism and its derivatives. This comprehensive framework ADDS the intuitive ethics – loyalty, respect and sanctity – which are necessary to deal with the real world and real human nature and, thus, form the basis for sustainable societies (again, per Haidt).
That is the difference between self-described “liberals” (read: leftist, “progressive“, fascists) and self-described “conservatives” (read: classical liberals). It’s a difference that is based entirely on human emotional and psychological moral development, NOT on the relative strengths and weaknesses of opposing political and social ideologies. That difference explains how highly intelligent individuals can rationalize their obeisance to ideologies that have been completely discredited, i.e., simple “genius” alone does not a good citizen make.
Meanwhile, your use of the utterly discredited AGW myth as “evidence” of Lovelock’s perspicacity is the height of intellectual dishonesty (eh… someone should inform Lovelock that humans managed to survive the last Ice Age).
There’s only one reason a dwindling gang of politically motivated, regressive “scientists” can’t convince the public of the threat they invented: it’s completely bogus.
j.x.(235&237),
Wow..I mean, WOW, I mean like, totally, WOW..
Pull up a chair junior…
Japanese internment camps…the left
The draft…the left
Waco massacre…the left
Every mass genocide in the 20th Century…the left
I think you’re confusing classical Jeffersonian liberalism with today’s conformist fascistic strain (characterized by Obama Zombies like yourself).
My experience is that arguing with or trying to change the mind of an avowed Liberal is a waste of time. However, confronting distortion, lies, and slander is required of someone who speaks the truth. So, how should a Conservative respond?
Consider this: according to a recent Gallup Poll poll, about 21% of the population is self identified as “Liberal”. Another 40% identify themselves as “Conservative”, and 35% as “Moderate”.
What is important to realize is that in public discourse, in the media, or personally, you must confront the lies of the Liberal, and tell the truth. However, realize you are really speaking to the Moderates, who are listening on the sidelines. The so called “silent majority”.
It is the opinion, and vote, of the Moderate that really matters, and they are usually persuadable. Together, Conservatives and Moderates form a large majority that can govern to the satisfaction of most Americans.
Our goal, as Conservatives, or Moderates, is to confront the Liberal with arguments and facts that enlighten and persuade the undecided Moderate.
288 Bill wrote “…Remember that there are two primary forces in this world – good and evil. Liberalism, however, refuses to accept that there are moral absolutes. The concept of moral equivalency allows them to believe whatever evil idea fits their agenda.”
And how does the “two primary force” concept work or not work in politics? You say that libs are all about feelings and naive, but when you deal with a system where people vote, rather than slaughter the opposition, your good-evil lens seems pretty naive, and worse still, ponderous.
IP You say, “Everybody does it” is not a defense, but an accurate description of our world. You are suffering from confirmation bias — you want to see Obama as a totalitarian, and it is thus not surprising that the evidence you find supports that point.”
No, “everyone” doesn’t do it. That’s the flaw in your argument. It is true that there will always be people who do it. A very different thing, my friend. Yes, any and every group has those people in it who NEED the group. And these are the people you are referring to. They will suspend their own logic and conform to whatever the group believes. No matter what! But the majority of people who are in a group have landed there because it is comfortable for them. The people have joined the group because they share interests, income, or ideas. And if they change, or the group changes, they move on.
Which is, as I said previously what is happening with Obama. His numbers are tanking as people move on in droves.
It seems to me that you are attempting to shut down my discussion by simply saying that because other’s claimed Bush was a tyrant, that it is mute to have the discussion of Obama. Really? Is it? Are you really saying it is never appropriate to have the discussion about how much nationalization will result in the loss of individual liberty? You don’t even have any idea how I felt about Bush or Romney. You seem to have made all of these assumptions about what I felt about Bush’s actions based on what I’ve said about Obama.
You’ve snidely remarked that I have no grasp of history. But am I wrong or are you the one who needs to become better informed about the significance of what is happening today?
Hmmm..speaking of a mindset:
find it sad that you have to have rules of engagement on your comments section for an article that was clearly directed at conservatives…
After so many quite intolerant, disrespectful posts concerning the nature of all liberals (not just a selected bunch of liberals, who annoy us all), I just have to ask..again..
Do you honestly think liberals only think one way and conservatives only think one way? You really dreeam all conservatives would agree with this one-sided, back-patting, self-absorbed hyperbole?
Isn’t the idea to relish discussion and challenges to our assumptions? If the answer is “no”..that explains much. And underlines the ironic nature of the opinion and many of the kneejerk reactions.
As David R. Block put it so well, up at #266:
Lots of sites are hell unless you drink the koolaid and loathe what the regulars loathe. On BOTH sides of the political divide.
I know a lot of conservatives who I admire and love dearly. I can’t imagine them echoing the idea that liberals are like psychopaths. I think they’d agree that some liberal are obnoxious beyond belief ..but some conservatives are, also. I’d guess a fair number of conservatives would see that main argument as a repulsive idea, as a generalization.
Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?
@289. MissNicky: – I just ran out of patience on the very partisan notion that the Nazis were “left-wing” or that liberals are much like Hitler, that came from some posters. I was sarcastic about a glib rewriting of history.
Yes, sarcasm often stands in for rational discourse, as yours did here.
The only “rewriting” required to identify Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s fascism as completely left-wing ideologies is the rewriting of the revisionist history we’ve been subjected to by Marxists in academia since the rise of Stalinism.
The propaganda aimed at distancing international socialism (i.e., communism) from national socialism (i.e., fascism) began with Mussolini himself (to be accurate, it began with Mussolini’s expansive ego). That propaganda has since found its way into every facet of our popular culture, including the pop culture history taught in public and most private education institutions, and championed by communist John Dewey and his “Deweyite” followers, partisan hacks like self-described “socialist” Howard Zinn and apologist for terrorism Edward Said. This doesn’t change the fact that both nazism and fascism derive from the Utopian lie at the heart of socialism.
Understanding the basic differences one finds over the extent of the political spectrum requires no extensive deconstruction or over-intellectualization. You have the Omnipotent State – Totalitarianism – on the far left end and the Nonexistent State – Anarchy – on the right end. Everything that increases the power of the State and reduces the significance of the individual, moves society left. Everything that reduces the influence of the State, and empowers the individual, moves society right.
At the center of this spectrum you will find the “happy medium” (i.e., a sustainable society) where the individual is optimally empowered within the constraints of the rule of law. It comprises that degree of government, and only that degree, necessary to prevent society from falling into Anarchy. Historically, that form of government – which is the condition to which self-described “conservatives” aspire – is the Republic, governed by a representative, constitutionally-limited State that derives its authority from the governed and economically supported by a free market (i.e., capitalism). To the left of this you will find socialism, international socialism (communism), national socialism (nazism and fascism) and, ultimately, totalitarianism.
So, ultimately, you were sarcastic about something you simply don’t understand, and resorted to the well-worn formula describe by Berlet98 in #279.
#292 goy — Meanwhile, your use of the utterly discredited AGW myth as “evidence” of Lovelock’s perspicacity is the height of intellectual dishonesty…
I knew that For argument assume was going to be a bit much for some of the readers herein, some of whom would confuse using something (anything) as an argument with the argument itself. This is like when the physics professor says “assume a spherical cow” to illustrate a point and some dimwit will claim the professor thinks cows are spherical.
It’s a difference that is based entirely on human emotional and psychological moral development, NOT on the relative strengths and weaknesses of opposing political and social ideologies.
I’m assuming you too would label Lovelock’s observation as “stupid” despite the obvious confirmation of it you’re posting. (Irony alert.) Meanwhile, conjuring up a reason from thin air (the others are alien due to inferior moral development) as the way to differentiate ‘them’ smacks of the crackpot arguments underlying eugenics, racism, and so on.
#294 Joe — Another 40% identify themselves as “Conservative”, and 35% as “Moderate”.
Look closely and you’ll see that many democrats view themselves as being conservative or moderate. Yet on this site the assumption appears to be that all democrats are anything *but* conservative.
How do you explain that?
As I see it the self-ID’d liberals are about the same minority percentage of the electorate as the “conservatives” that populate this place, most of whom seems grossly out of touch with the electorate as a whole.
@285. goy: Know? No dear, you were supposed to be curious.
I am curious. That’s why I read the Alternet article that the original post’s author quoted one misleading sentence from. And it’s why I read your blog, once I realized you had one. I’m still not sure how I was supposed to know about it–should I be clicking on every blue name in this thread to see if the person has a relevant blog somewhere?
like the fact that reconciliation was never, never, NEVER intended to shield controversial legislation, much less to ram through Amendment-class expansions to Congress’ powers.
Your link shows Byrd talking about using reconciliation to pass Clinton’s entire health care plan. That was not the case here. Health care reform passed both houses on regular votes, getting 60 votes in the Senate, and then the House voted to pass the Senate version of the bill. Reconciliation was only being used to resolve the differences between the two bills, which both a former and the current Senate parliamentarian okayed. (Hmm, who to believe…two Senate parliamentarians or some guy shouting at me on the Internet…)
The idea that the Democrats were using reconciliation to pass health care reform altogether was just part of the Republicans’ last-ditch propaganda effort. My impression is that you’re smart enough to realize that, so I conclude that you’re promoting the propaganda intentionally.
@299. G.L. Alston:- I knew that For argument assume …
Oh do give it a rest. Your silly commentary asserted right up front that “Lovelock is correct”. You’ll have to own that assertion as being manifestly false: Lovelock’s leftist confirmation bias forces him to exclude the reality that humans were “smart enough” to survive the last Ice Age. And that’s before we even begin to discuss how infinitely less advanced those humans were, technologically, than today. Yet despite the fact that Lovelock is clearly self-deluded, you offered his own discredited nonsense as an “argument” in support of his argument.
I see now that I was wrong: that’s not just simple intellectually dishonesty, that’s downright circular intellectually dishonest.
- I’m assuming you too would label Lovelock’s observation as “stupid” despite the obvious confirmation of it you’re posting.
Lovelock hasn’t made any observation whatsoever. What he’s made is a value judgment – one that is based on his own distorted view of humanity, i.e., we’re just another lowly sub-organism in the super-organism he calls GAIA. Meanwhile, Lovelock’s judgment is invalidated (not “confirmed”, as you’ve disingenuously claimed here) by human history itself.
- Meanwhile, conjuring up a reason from thin air (the others are alien due to inferior moral development) …
When you get tired of posting straw man fallacies, try working through this once more. Again, no one has asserted that “the others are alien”. ALL of the suggestions noted above are offered as explanations for the uncivil – unhinged – behavior that is so undeniably characteristic of the contemporary political left.
- …smacks of the crackpot arguments underlying eugenics, racism, and so on.
LOL!!!! This is truly hilarious. Okay, then enlighten me: on what sort of “crackpot argument” is most parenting theory based, eh?
Because the difference between a selective vs. a comprehensive moral framework is simply a question of immaturity vs. maturity, respectively. On that basis, your straw man implies that I should recommend the humane extermination of any child and the “breeding out” of any race I deem incapable of… what… maturing to the level of a fully-functional, self-aware, socially civilized adult? Such a straw man is, of course… stupid… if only based on the fact that we see so very much of this sort of thing.
@goy: I usually stay out of these “x is like Hitler” arguments, but I am wondering about one thing. On the one hand, in talking about Haidt’s research, you say that a moral emphasis on “care” and “fairness” is immature and liberal, while incorporating more attention to “loyalty,” “authority,” and “purity” is more mature and conservative. Now, those last three traits strike me as very much a part of the Nazi’s “morality”–they were all about the purity–and yet you and others insist the Nazis were left-wing. That seems contradictory to me–if you want to paint the Nazis as lefties, it seems like you’d have to show that their moral sense was based on care and fairness and undervalued authority and purity, which I think you’d have a hard time doing.
#298 goy Historically, that form of government – which is the condition to which self-described “conservatives” aspire – is the Republic, governed by a representative, constitutionally-limited State that derives its authority from the governed and economically supported by a free market (i.e., capitalism).
Which of course hasn’t existed in over 100 years. It was government investment in the postal service that kickstarted much of commercial aviation, government investment that created the interstate system, government investment that created gigawatts of electricity (e.g. TVA) and government investment that brought forth the device you are typing on. The dreaded military industrial complex at work. Much of what makes the US a superpower is the result of government investment, which is not free market capitalism at all. Heavens. The country is and has been center-left in that case, and it works.
Nice exposition you had going there but utterly ahistorical. What people like to call “fiscal conservative” is better written as “fictional conservative.”
It’s much simpler: Arrested development at about the high school sophomore stage. (Intelligence, but without wisdom or judgment)
“Liberalism is a mental disorder.” — Dr. Michael Savage
Jake: Rush and his buddies in the Conservative Commentariat are not lying about what you believe. They are simply making the world aware of the harmful and destructive consequences of your beliefs. The pursuit of “social justice” and “equality” do not make people’s lives better. They bring decay, stagnation, misery and authoritarian repression. Name one country where people are better off from pursuing leftist policy … Time’s up. I know you can’t name one. On the other hand there are plenty of “laboratories” out there were leftist policy has failed miserably: the former Soviet Union, China, Argentina, Greece, any EU country, Britain (which is in the midst of an extraordinary collapse), and even that brilliant northern star Canada, which makes a national sport of prosecuting people for exercising their natural rights to freedom of speech. At home we have, California, Michigan, New York, and Illinois, just for starters. I’m sorry you can’t face facts and prefer to dismiss them as lies, but it seems that facing facts is not something that leftists do well.
After 30 years, you think liberals would just shut up and respect our opinion about the evil and slimy ways they think. How intolerant of them!
305.
It’s much simpler: Arrested development at about the high school sophomore stage. (Intelligence, but without wisdom or judgment)
–
306.
“Liberalism is a mental disorder.” — Dr. Michael Savage
It’s a tad early for April Fool’s Irony.
294. Joe:
When one continues to read the rest of the Gallup poll one finds that the majority see themselves as Democrats. The indpendents only make up 9%.
“Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.”
So when the poll asks whether people consider themselves liberal, conservative or moderate it should be looked at relative to their party affiliation. You would probably consider a conservative Democrat as someone who is evil and trying to destroy the country, even thought they consider themselves conservative. Let me pose a question to this site. The majority of Americans are in favor of repealing Dont ask dont tell. Are people here also for the repeal because the majority wants it gone?
- …the majority see themselves as Democrats.
This means what, exactly?
Yawn……
@303. Jake: – you say that a moral emphasis on “care” and “fairness” is immature …
I’ve said no such thing. Please read it again for comprehension. Or simply see the response above to the poor, benighted Alston: “the difference between a selective vs. a comprehensive moral framework is simply a question of immaturity vs. maturity, respectively.” That is, the issue is selective vs. comprehensive morality, not the specific ethics in question.
Also be very careful to note what I’ve suggested there. That is, a selective moral framework based overwhelmingly on only “fairness” and “caring” makes one susceptible to discredited Utopian collectivist ideologies. Wherever you hear collectivist rhetoric being broadcast as a justification for social “change” (it’s always “change”), you will eventually find a power-hungry thug who has learned how to manipulate and exploit the morally immature – usually because he’s one of them. Especially dangerous are those in this group who are sufficiently intellectually advanced to rationalize almost any inherently irrational policy, as long as it fits the confirmation bias defined by their selective morality. See also: Deconstructionism. These folks are sometimes found in the “useful idiot” category.
So the corollary here is that these two ethics are NOT necessarily a facet of the totalitarian societies which ultimately arise from the exploitation of that susceptibility. Quite the contrary, if history is a guide. In a contemporary sense, susceptibility to the wholly undefinable notions of “Hope” and “Change” was exploited to elect BHO, but we’ve seen little of either since his inauguration: our economy has been actively beaten into a hopeless state through truly insane levels of public debt, and BHO has hardly changed at all from the policies he campaigned against (i.e., Bush’s).
- Now, those last three traits strike me as very much a part of the Nazi’s “morality”
They do? If so, maybe you should dig a little deeper into two things.
First look at the meanings of the terms Haidt and his colleagues use to reference the various intuitive ethics identified by his research. They are unfortunately very general terms and, therefore, somewhat like legal terms of art, must be used cognizant of the definitions attributed there – at least if you want to have a coherent discussion regarding their significance. This is the most common problem I’ve seen in responses to Haidt’s papers from those in the milieu in which he works. For instance, one man’s “purity of spirit” is not necessarily another man’s “purity of food” which is not a third man’s “purity of race”. The three can be completely orthogonal.
Following that, examine the actual nature of the Nazi regime itself and realize that one must separate that nature from the leftist propaganda that was used to promote it.
- … if you want to paint the Nazis as lefties, it seems like you’d have to show that their moral sense was based on care and fairness and undervalued authority and purity, which I think you’d have a hard time doing.
You’d think so, but I think you’d be wrong. I think what you’d have to show is that the power structure which ultimately morphed into the Third Reich’s High Command (and its immediately subordinate bureaucracy) was successful in exploiting individuals possessed of a moral framework based sufficiently on “fairness” and “caring”.
The Nazis did this by developing a platform – actually codified by Hitler and Drexler in 1920 – directly aimed at achieving that end. And in fact, this is exactly what’s happening in the USA right now, with the pursuit of the “benevolent”, leftist agenda of “social justice” which (a) appeals the the morally adolescent, leftist mindset while (b) pushing society ever-further to the left by increasing the power of the State. That doesn’t mean BHO is Hitler. What it means is that he and his Alinskyite ilk are using the same tactics used by the Nazis to achieve what will ultimately be the same goal: an omnipotent State.
The corrupted notion of “purity” especially – that is, with respect to the so-called “Aryan race” – was “pure” Nazis propaganda, not a reflection of any true moral ideology. To validate this, one only need examine the ancestry of Hitler himself: he was descended from Jews. Like the current administration’s putsch to implement socialized medicine, the Nazis’ stentorian emphasis on “purity” was really a ruse designed to facilitate control through the divide-and-conquer qualities of fomented xenophobia (like The Left Wing Media’s current efforts to demonize the TEA Party).
Collectivist, egalitarian policies were widely promoted by the Nazis as a means to gain political power: the “right” to a job, abolition of interest income (elimination of capitalism) and the complete nationalization of ALL enterprise (including health care, of course). But again, a cursory examination of the selective manner in which “fairness”, for instance, was applied under the Third Reich reveals that some individuals came to be considered more “equal” than others. This wasn’t limited to race, but extended to the political structure the Nazis used to maintain control. “Right Thinking”, and all that.
Also, the Nazi State was not interested in promoting respect for authority. Their aim, successfully achieved, was to promote fear of authority. Like our own government today, they were well aware that their their claim to authority was illegitimate, at best.
The Nazi’s (and Mussolinis’) entire basis of power was founded on an authoritarian abuse of physical and militaristic power. I’m not saying you’re prone to this, but another hapless socialist who used to post here – David S – had consistent difficulty understanding the difference here. Hard to fathom why, because the difference isn’t even subtle, unless one is confused by the roots of words, yet he consistently maintained that the comprehensive morality Haidt identified included an authoritarian element, which it doesn’t. Rather, respect for the preservation of legitimate authority is what Haidt’s intuitive ethic of “authority” references.
.
@304. G.L. Alston: – Which of course hasn’t existed in over 100 years.
Hmmm… another fail, courtesy of binary thinking. A pure free market has never existed – that would be a free-for-all market (anarchy). Meanwhile, the degree to which the market is free, or not, does not obviate conservative aspirations toward that ideal in any way. Neither does “government investment”. And of course those aspirations were point of my statement, weren’t they, not the irrelevant thesis you chose in an attempt to change the subject.
That said, government – actually Taxpayer – investment is only one facet of the overall market, and you’re overstating its significance just a tad. The vast majority of technological innovation has come from market demand in the public at large. Without that demand the government could burn through every taxpayer dollar available and not create any real industry whatsoever. Venture capitalism aimed at exploiting that demand and private enterprise are mostly distorted and corrupted by government, not made possible by it.
ALL of the Taxpayer funds poured into private enterprise over the decades had to leverage the free market by definition, where capitalism made investment viable enough to create industry in the first place. None of this was based on nationalized industry, as your silly comment would imply.
Government is just another consumer that has the advantage of using Other People’s Money, nothing more.
307. Jack: Rush and his buddies in the Conservative Commentariat are not lying…
I listen to Rush sometimes. The things he says about liberals–the motives he ascribes to us–are out-and-out lies. They’re obviously lies that his audience likes to hear, but they’re just not true. If you want to oppose liberal/leftist policies because of their perceived downside, that’s fine–that’s what politics and elections are for. Spreading lies about your opponents isn’t cool, but it’s Rush and Sean and Sarah’s MO.
And oh yeah, those European countries and Canada, where leftist policy has failed miserably. Save me from having to live like a Frenchman! Or in the hellhole that is Vancouver! Of course, I’m not saying it’s all better in those other places. But that doesn’t mean it’s all better here either.
In order to help others I added the link you this story here: http://bit.ly/cyutWE
Now to reply… this is frustrating as hell. I don’t mind if the Libs disagree with me, I can respect that. However I do NOT understand HOW they can close-mindedly disagree with me and yet they can NEVER give me any facts or reasons to support their beliefs. I is like asking my 6 year old a question… and getting the irrational temper tantrum in response.
#302 goy — Oh do give it a rest. Your silly commentary asserted right up front that “Lovelock is correct”.
I clearly referred to the AGW part, even quoted it. You’re weaseling, and it’s almost humourous.
Lovelock’s observation is that humans do not have what it takes to work together to confront a planetary level crisis. That humans survived the ice age isn’t germane because the observation dealt with the human inability to work together to undo. I pointed out that the demonisation of liberals herein validates his assertion.
Because the difference between a selective vs. a comprehensive moral framework is simply a question of immaturity vs. maturity, respectively.
Ask any social conservative to pontificate on morals and eventually it comes down to a bald assertion that they are more moral due to their religious belief (liberals are atheistic, blah blah blah.) What you’re doing is making the same argument and pretending that it’s really not the same because it’s been dressed up in a lab coat.
“Adam Yoshida has a great idea on what to do with them: macrowaves. As in microwaves, but bigger. Not the waves themselves, because that would be a radio, but the oven — big enough for a person. So the “progressive” goes in, gets microwaved (macrowaved), SPLOOSH, and the next “progressive” is sent in to clean it up (they love the environment so much, let them clean) before beep! beep! SPLOOSH!”
Well, the important thing is that he’s suggesting killing people by walking them into microwaves, not ovens. That does make all the difference, doesn’t it?
#312 goy — That said, government – actually Taxpayer – investment is only one facet of the overall market, and you’re overstating its significance just a tad. The vast majority of technological innovation has come from market demand in the public at large.
I can’t agree. Electronic computers were invented to solve ballistics problems, GPS for much the same reason, the internet was created so as to have secure military comm capability. IC’s were developed so as to guide ICBM’s, the interstate was a military road system to mimic the autobahn (which was a good idea.) Superglue was developed as a battlefield astringent. In short, almost everything we take for granted as tech innovation was developed by and for the government for their own reasons. DARPA rocks.
That said I’ve always voted GOP and never voted D because a strong defense system will result eventually in tech that is usable in the consumer marketplace. I’m all for tasking the US Navy to build a few hundred smaller nuke plants so as to make electricity cheaper; energy = prosperity. (If anyone could do this correctly, it would be the US Navy.) That’s not fiscal conservatism, not by a long shot.
What most conservative commentors like to call fiscal conservatism in their talking points simply doesn’t exist. However, as I see it, the GOP has a much better track record of spending, which I was careful to term as government *investment* rather than mere money tossing as the left seems wont to do. Fiscal conservatism, if defined as using taxpayer money with the express idea that this is going into R&D that will eventually benefit all, would certainly find agreement from me.
Darleen Click at #287,
Non-leftists can be polite until the cows come home and it makes little difference to the Left.
That’s a mighty strong opinion. Are you suggesting that Glenn Reynolds receives an equal proportion of snarky rudeness from the Left as does Jeff Goldstein.
I really don’t think so. My own first thoughts:
Reynolds is known as a blog pioneering libertarian who shares his thoughts via links to a wide variety of (mostly right leaning) online resources.
Goldstein is known as a stay at home dad blogger who has a reputation for sarcasm, vulgarity, and strong polemic, as well as highly opinionated but clever wordsmithery.
Think the two can devise a scientific experiment to see which style garners the most “disrespect and lack of empathy” from the Left?
The right wing’s “empathy”– hey maybe the other side is a lot like a psychopath (sorry, first commenter– sociopath). So the left lacks empathy because they are like people who lack empathy. Brilliant stuff, doc. Empathetic, too.
I don’t know if you’ll out-empathize us, but you’re winning the self-congratulation war.
I have pondered this topic many times, and my mind always returns to the same train of thought.
I think that liberals do not have the capacity to understand conservative or libertarian perspectives because there is some combination IQ/EQ gene that they simply do not possess. They do not understand systems and structures very well (e.g., economics, bureaucratic and corporate organization structures, foreign policy, how to motivate human beings without guilt or fear, statistics, recognition and minimization of waste, logic games, etc.). Liberals particularly do not understand the relationships and effects that separate systems have with and upon one another.
Example: Your average liberal simply cannot understand how it is possible to reduce tax rates and increase tax revenue simultaneously. This is much like Obama’s recent flub over productivity in the workplace. He reasoned that increased productivity is bad because a business will not need as many people to do the work. But what if someone else is doing the same thing in a more productive manner than you are? There may not be a job for ANYONE at your business if you keep up a productivity environment like the union-infested GM . . .
I view the liberal inability to understand my perspective similarly to an ex-boyfriend’s inability to completely “get” me and never even know it. It was like looking back at algebra after learning calculus and, of course, understanding both mathematical disciplines, while the 8th grade algebra student cannot conceive of the calculus they don’t know because, well, they don’t know it.
This is really fascinating and reflects my personal experience with a liberal talk show host. When I suggested that we keep in mind that health care tea party protests were motivated not by hate but by a deep and profound fear and sense of betrayal, I was berated.
I simply believe that when we dismiss an entire group of people, we deny their humanity and by extension in that process we forfeit a bit of our own humanity. When the human equasion is removed from politics we have nothing but a power play.
I had always thought that liberals were supposed to be motivated by humanitarianism, but I now realise how TERRIBLY naive I was.
Converatives need to be reasoned and rational but Passionate. The liberal language works so well because it has strong emotion. And negative emotions are easier to embrace and internalize than positive emotions. (Misery loves company, it takes guts to be happy, being unhappy is easy.) Conservatives are too, well, conservative. Wallking on eggshells just does not cut it anymore. We saw that in 2008.
I’m no disciple of Michael Savage, but this thread is just more proof — as if any is needed — that liberalism IS a mental disorder. If only we sane Americans could part ways with the suicidal left entirely. But alas it is not meant to be. There is no earthly utopia.
Other than describing liberals (we “disrespectful”, no-emapthy people) #25 -”self-loathing,.. narcisssitic”, #27 – advice -” Don’t do business with them or their companies
Fire the ones who work for you”, #57- “self-delusion of moral righteousness”, #130 – “petty, unthinking tyrants”, “, #147 – ‘(liberals) seek to crush us’, -#208 – “I hate Democrats with a passion.”, ..wait for it…#219 – “conservatives have civility , manners”, #249 – “I could give a fig if a single one of them survives the next 24 hours.”, #280 – “Indeed, any liberal is, temperamentally, a Hitler or Stalin”…
And I could have picked from another few dozen irrational posts like that.
Now,,as I’ve said to soeone else..political sites can be filled with people being oboxious and it’s damn tedious. One differece is, this one started about how awful liberals are and it went downhill.
It’s fascinating..sort of. I was interested to see if someone on the conservative side might see the problem with this kind of hyperbole.
—
Gramsci:
The right wing’s “empathy”– hey maybe the other side is a lot like a psychopath (sorry, first commenter– sociopath). So the left lacks empathy because they are like people who lack empathy. Brilliant stuff, doc. Empathetic, too.
I don’t know if you’ll out-empathize us, but you’re winning the self-congratulation war.
You pointed it better than I could.
As someone noted – one thing that’s good about the liberal side that helps – we have folks like Jon Stewart who make fun up liberals acting silly, and conservatives, the media doing the same. I think perhaps..some of that could help around here. But I’m not exactly holding my breath. Goldstein’s cartoon was vile, and that’s the kindest I can think of to say. He’s a poor choice for a pity party. I’m not accusing the site of intentional racism, but it is hard to accept at a time when a a white supremacist just pleaded guilty to try and murder Obama and dozens of black Americans.
On the pity thing – I agree, it’s also hard to accept totially when dishonest rabblerousers like Rush, Beck, Coulter and Palin are treated as untouchable heroes. My 2 cents but is seems that more (a few) conservative writers are pushing away from them.
“I have pondered this topic many times”
320. Julie: maybe your brain energy would be better spent elsewhere because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. As the majority of my liberal friends are getting their phds in Economics and Sciences. I find it hard to imagine they do not understand statistics, logic games or relationships because that is what they research/study. As a liberal myself I find that I am well versed in most of your list. I cannot help with your boy issues, but I wonder if he was a conservative, and whether the issue was that he could not empathize with you. Throwing in my two cents I think that your political ideology is greatly based on your environment and not genetics. I go to school with a lot of liberal who come from conservative families. As the younger crowd significantly more liberal than the older generations, this seems obvious. I venture that this increase in liberal youth is a direct consequence of them growing up during the Bush II years.
One more, since the timing is good, maybe.
I simply believe that when we dismiss an entire group of people, we deny their humanity and by extension in that process we forfeit a bit of our own humanity. When the human equasion is removed from politics we have nothing but a power play.
I deplore this on any side and I’m sorry if you were treated this way. I may try this again..I just selected a few quotes from many that backed up just this kind of behavior. I could pick quote after quote from the RW icons that I would loathe if said by a LWer about RWers. Like we’re a “a cancer” on America – that’s only half the people in the history of this country, right? Including Teddy Roosevelt. Should that stop? Or it that acceptable?
Just asking.
#320 Julie — Your average liberal simply cannot understand how it is possible to reduce tax rates and increase tax revenue simultaneously.
Of course your average liberal can. What *you* aren’t getting is that the usual outcome is that the business owner doesn’t give raises but instead buys a new Mercedes or a Rolex for the mistress.
Liberals do in fact understand the conservative putdown that you can’t tax your way to prosperity, but neither can you reduce tax to zero and get there either.
The problem is that overall you’re wrong because your contention misses the entire point. Taxes and tax structures aren’t the driver of growth. Invention is. Without new invention, there is no growth; you have a nation of people selling burgers and dry cleaning to each other. High tax, low tax, all of that is meaningless and mere argument regarding who gets what slice of the dwindling pie. The boom years of the 80′s weren’t driven by Reagan, Laffer, or anything else other than the commercialisation of technologies paid for initially by the bad old government. Invention is economic growth. Nothing else is.
Obama has been pushing green tech because even liberals understand that new invention means growth. What I find amusing about liberals though is that they’re technology illiterates; one can’t simple mandate green stuff and engineers will suddenly poof it into existence. Obama seems to be a bit addled; he gets that invention is growth, but what he doesn’t get is that invention comes only after significant R&D expense. But is he really that stupid? That seems unlikely; he seems to be doing his best to accommodate all of the calls for free markets by the right and then is thwarted by the leftist wolves (e.g. Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Barney Frank) who are throwing their own roadblocks to get their piece of the pie. Obama is too weak to fight them, but he seems to mean well. He’s a great deal like Carter in that aspect: weak. (Who knows, though, the health care thing may have made him a vertebrate.)
There’s a great deal to dislike about liberals, but claiming a lack of understanding merely because they disagree seems silly.
@315. G.L. Alston: – I clearly referred to the AGW part, …
Which, of course, was exactly my point. You can’t use Lovelock’s confusion about a mythical threat to support the silly notion that “Lovelock is correct” in his value judgment of humanity as “stupid” with regard to that mythical threat. I’d classify it a circular reasoning if it weren’t, in fact, circular idiocy.
- Lovelock’s observation is that humans do not have what it takes to work together to confront a planetary level crisis.
Again, Lovelock has not made any observation. He’s expressed an opinion. And since there IS no planetary-level crisis, Lovelock’s opinion is baseless.
- That humans survived the ice age isn’t germane…
The IPCC says it IS germane, as you’ll see…
- … because the observation dealt with the human inability to work together to undo.
Heheheh. “Undo” what?? There is nothing to “undo”. AGW is a scam. A myth. A non sequitur. A boondoggle. That’s why Lovelock is, in point of fact, not making an “observation” of any kind. He’s expressing his opinion that humans are too stupid to buy into the AGW con. That level of demagoguery is right up there with someone who might come up with something like, oh, I don’t know, maybe, “[i]t may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” Sure Jim, we “stupid” proles here in the USA will get right on suspending the U.S. Constitution for you – just hang on the line while I get my supervisor…
But here’s the best part, and the reason why the last Ice Age is germane – even if you’re credulous enough to buy into the AGW catechism, the IPPC itself pointed out long ago that “undoing” so-called “climate change” is not a feasible option. Here’s what they wrote back in 2007 [my emph.]:
So the bottom line is that Lovelock’s value judgment – which is not an observation by any definition one cares to name – fails ON EVERY LEVEL. That he should persist in that judgment rightly earns him the Stuck on Stupid Award. And the fact that you keep trying to defend his stupidity… well…
- Ask any social conservative to pontificate on morals and eventually it comes down to a bald assertion that they are more moral due to their religious belief…
Sounds like another unverifiable straw man. When you’ve got some objective evidence of this, please post it. Haidt published his, and my inclination is to trust his intellectual honesty over your repeated attempts to argue against irrelevancies and outright fallacies of your own construction.
- I can’t agree.
That’s because you don’t understand free market economics.
- Electronic computers were invented to solve ballistics problems, GPS for much the same reason, …
And the computer industry became an actual industry because of private sector use and consumer demand.
- the internet was created so as to have secure military comm capability.
And it grew to proportions never imagined by its original designers because of… private sector use and consumer demand.
- IC’s were developed so as to guide ICBM’s, …
LOL!!! Now you’re just pulling stuff out of you-know-where.
- the interstate was a military road system to mimic the autobahn (which was a good idea.)
This is your worst example yet. It remains viable only because it’s used almost 100% by… the private sector. Limiting its use to a purely “military road system” would never fly.
- … almost everything we take for granted as tech innovation was developed by and for the government …
Again, you’re intentionally missing the larger point. ALL of these innovations were developed by private sector industry which could not have existed without free market enterprise. And again, these few examples (and any more you can think of to post) are dwarfed by the millions (maybe billions, who knows) of innovations that were driven by market demand in the food, farming, medical, imaging, film, animal husbandry, recreation, television, clothing, education and a myriad of other sectors – all of which were driven by private sector demand, not federal defense requirements.
- What most conservative commentors like to call fiscal conservatism in their talking points simply doesn’t exist.
That’s nice, if only just one more hasty generalization. Either way, when the topic turns to whether or not fiscal conservatism exists, let’s have that discussion. This one – the one you keep trying to avoid – is about the reasons for leftists’ disrespectful, uncivil behavior.
I think that liberals do not have the capacity to understand conservative or libertarian perspectives because there is some combination IQ/EQ gene that they simply do not possess.
A conservative named Paul Deignan did a quasi-scientific study along those lines. He found the MBTI type most represented by people who frequent political blogs was INTJ, with a slight liberal pull towards ENFP and a slight conservative pull towards ISTJ.
Not to be outdone, other blogs did their own polls. Free Republic, Smirking Chimp, and Firedoglake being a few. Most respondents who commented on the results were stunned to find out that INTJ was by far the most common MBTI type, regardless of political leanings. Most blog regulars are “masterminds” regardless of their politics.
My take is that INTJ simply prefers keyboard self-expression, much more, than does any other MBTI type. And, that political preference is a function of one’s own culture, background, experiences and lifestyle. If your big city career is moved to China and your family are academics and atheists, you may lean liberal. If you’re a successful small town business owner whose family are traditional evangelicals, you may lean conservative.
In other words, you lean towards what you believe is in your own best self-interest, and not what you’re born with.
Someone else’s disrespect is not justification for disrespect on your part. Take the high road. Let your opposition act uncivilly and then make your point based on facts and reason. Remember neither the left nor the right is trying to convince the other side that they are correct but both sides are trying to convince the middle.
I’ve tried smoking tremendous amounts of pot. It still doesn’t work, but the food and music is great.
“Someone else’s disrespect is not justification for disrespect on your part.”
I despise liberal Democrats because of what their party has done in the past and what they’re doing now.
I could give a damn whether they respect me or not. They’re scum either way.
Obama appears to be a weak, self concerned leader interested in his own agenda no matter what everyone else wants and needs. Either he’s easily led or stupid.
…at first I thought he was my mother-in-law…but realized he’s taller..of course she could have heels on…
So, in order to shame liberals for daring to insult a conservative, you dedicate an entire article to insulting liberals?
Good job.
The Left’s disrespect and lack of empathy?
Yeah, I can see Goldstein keeps so far above the fray when he posts comics about Obama raping lady liberty.
Because that’s the high road that Conservatives travel.
It’s easy for conservatives to put themselves in the shoes of “liberals”, we were all infants once with only a self centered concern for food, sleep and someone to wipe us.
“Liberals” are that base in their lusts – and their jealousy of others.
I think the more likely explanation is lack of maturity – period. No real world experience, no empathy, no imagination. And, of course, they still need a “bad parent” to rail against – hence, the continued prevalence of “Bush did it”, or “tea-partiers are racists!” or “Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ” (pardon me, I goofed – there is no Christ, right? So of course, there cannot be an anti-Christ; ok, “Sarah Palin is B-A-A-A-D”). God help us. We’re being governed by a bunch of 15-year-olds.
“Which members of the GOP?”
“What basis since 1994 do you speak?”
Newt Gingrich’s memo, titled “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control”, which he sent out in 94. If you read the thing, you’ll find the basis of pretty much every campaign for national office the GOP has waged since.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of complaining about how the mean ol’ progressives aren’t just standing there and taking the nonsense you’re dishing out.
Fight fire with fire. There is no other choice. Every time they mount a propaganda attack we mount a propaganda counterattack with equal or greater ferocity. Every time they make an unfounded allegation in the media we counter with a barrage of counter information in the media. If the media wont sell us the time or space we sue for equal access. Show no mercy.
Bush was a mis-guided fool because he was not willing to engage the battle of ideas. That was interpreted as fear and weakness. Obama is now overtly thumbing his nose at the majority of Americans. This is an intolerable posture for an American leader. We now need to attack on all legal fronts, including impeachment.
The Fall election is not a done deal we need to fight every inch of the way to overturn the Congress. This may be our last chance before severe damage to the republic incurs. The next step is impeachment.
Also gotta laugh at the party of “poor people are lazy and don’t deserve welfare” complaining about liberals’ lack of empathy.
@338. A Clearer Eye: – Newt Gingrich’s memo, titled “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control”, which he sent out in 94. If you read the thing, you’ll find the basis of pretty much every campaign for national office the GOP has waged since.
LOL! Right – the left has never tried to use negative language to control the narrative.
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… ”
- look it up
In a moment I have to run down to see if my “tax credit” (read: federal welfare) check is in the mailbox. I’m going to need it to pay for “universal health care” (read: socialized medicine), enacted by our “progressive” (read: fascist) Congress with the passage of the “Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010″ (read: the class-baiting, racialist, unconstitutional law that begins the takeover of the health care industry, usurps authority of school loans and forces American citizens to purchase something whether they want it, need it, can afford it, or not – unless they’re “poor”… “poor” to be defined at the whim and to the benefit of Democrat politicians).
But before I do… it’s funny, when I look at Newt’s list of words, I don’t find “contempt” among them. What I do see are words like bureaucracy, coercion, corruption, hypocrisy, stagnation, taxes, unionized and welfare – all words that quite accurately describe our increasingly socialist government, thanks to relentless demagoguery from the left.
And there’s nothing there that even begins to approach the level of ridicule, profanity and downright unhinged apoplexy exhibited by the left.
The left has been unhinged ever since the day Al Gore failed to carry his OWN HOME STATE in the 2000 Election and the Democrat party was transformed into the Anti-Bush Party. That nonsense persists for exactly the reasons Dr. Helen proposes. In the meantime, the left has never found a way to live up to Alinsky’s most important rule:
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
This is why our economy, culture and way of life in America are all circling the drain.
Have any of the people here rushing to Goldstein’s defense read the comic which Kiteley mentioned? Particularly Helen, since she wrote this article?
Helen, when people print comics that use rape as a humorous subject and reinforce racist stereotypes about sexual violence it’s easy to see why a Conservative, let alone a Liberal would want to distance themselves from that subject matter.
Instead we have the hilarity of you getting on your moral high horse to tell us horrible liberals how horrible and small minded we are for having no empathy and respect for someone who traffics in sick rape jokes.
What’s next, are Conservatives going to say I’m intolerant because I don’t laugh at their child molesting jokes?
Lefty, I know I haven’t seen a single coherent defense for the cartoon in question. Worse than that, I haven’t seen a single example of an open mind on a criticism about the cartoon. I haven’t seen why Goldstein’s professor didn’t have a right to do what he did, with a polite note. I don’t know why calling Goldstein a jerk for his angry reaction is so out of bounds. I don’t know why conservatives have made a cottage industry out of demeaning all liberals and playing the victim card for themselves for many years. I don’t know why they pretend Obama is a Marxist and an America hater, particularly when the world’s greatest capitalist – Warren Buffett – endorsed him . I don’t know if these people talk to the liberals they claim are their friends this way. I don’t know if they can possibly talk to real conservatives this way.
Seriously..I want to see a film of Dr. Smith and these posters saying these exact things to Lamar Alexander, Howard Baker, any number of that sort of Tennessee Republicans. I’ll offer to help pay in advance, for such a thing. Perhaps Goldstein could be included and he could bring that cartoon. Perhaps he could speak with less sexual language as he uses on his blog, but I would damn near net my houses the people I mentioned would find the cartoon far over the top and disgusting. The cartoonist admitted from the start that conservatives might dislike the cartton but she sneeringly called them “Stockholm-syndrome ‘conservatives’.
So of course, there cannot be an anti-Christ; ok, “Sarah Palin is B-A-A-A-D”). God help us.
Talk about a blinkered, one-sided complaint. Who thinks who is the antichrist?
What Republicans, Democrats and Independents think
There are – no surprise here – huge differences between what Republicans and Democrats believe. Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:
Is a socialist (67%)
Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61%)
Is a Muslim (57%)
Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).
Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:
Resents America’s heritage (47%)
Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (45%)
Is a racist (42%)
Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).
Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that “he may be the Anti-Christ” and 22% believe “he wants the terrorists to win.”
http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777
If conservatives are truly so adult and superior to liberals, why
can’t any of this raise a civil discussion from those on that side?
@343. MissNicky: – I know I haven’t seen a single coherent defense for the cartoon in question.
Hmmm… here’s a simple question: why does a political cartoon need “defense”? It’s a cartoon. It’s intentionally inflammatory because it’s intended to caricature political reality. What’s the problem again? Is it simply the fact that you don’t understand the nature of political cartoonage?
And speaking of reality, the cartoon itself is only marginally accurate. An accurate caricature of what went down last week would have included Pelosi and Reid standing next to BHO over Liberty’s half-dead body after they had gang-raped her. Don’t like that visual? Sorry, but it’s an accurate caricature of exactly what transpired. Disagree? Fine, disagree. But the notion that the left holds the moral high ground on responses to perceived political abuse is much funnier than any cartoon I’ve seen depicting BHO.
As far as this administration and this Congress is concerned, the Constitution is no longer a barrier to their collectivist, socially suicidal policy. They have Reconciliation, and will now do as they please, irrespective of the rule of law or the express, consistent will of the majority of the American People. The fact that you think “defense” is required to justify angry, inflammatory reactions to this president’s arrogance simply indicates either a very deep level of denial or a very strong will to see the Democrats’ socialist program implemented, with concomitant agreement that any means are justified by that end.
- If conservatives are truly so adult and superior to liberals, why can’t any of this raise a civil discussion from those on that side?
Simple: you can’t have a “civil discussion” with someone who is trying to kill you. The real issue is that YOU don’t see it that way and your confirmation bias forces you to see that statement as hyperbole.
The simple fact, however, is that everything this administration has done works toward the destruction of this Republic as it was defined. If you don’t like the Republic and you’re happy about this destruction, I can respect that. But please don’t yammer on about “Republicans” and their perceptions and opinions when it comes to our first honest-to-goodness Demagogue-in-Chief. He lied his way into office. He has piled an unsustainable debt on American Taxpayers. He has never publicly released probative documentation affirming his eligibility to be elected. He and his socialist ilk in the Democrat party have actively worked to destroy our economy since January of 2007. And with all that, the response from those who see BHO for what he is, and has always been – a Marxist ideologue – has never even come close to approaching the level of vitriol and tawdry ridicule used to attack his predecessor for 8 years… and counting.
Goy
Cartoons that were far less imflammory got a lot of criticism from the Right. b>Any political statement, form of art, or cartoon can be criticized and they have been criticized. I’m not sure how that can be denied. The freedom of speech exists on both sides. There were cartoons I didn’t like toward Bush and if I saw one of him sneering next to a sobbing Lady Liberty who’s been “raped” – I’d be disgusted and I’d say so. We aren’t allowed to express ourselves? Maybe you can calmly explain that one to me. And if you’re correct, the objections for a lot of RWers in the Bush years are very suspect. The mere depiction of Condoleezza Rice s a parrot caused quite a stir on your sice.
Simple: you can’t have a “civil discussion” with someone who is trying to kill you.
LOL.. You think people on a MESSAGE BOARD are trying to kill you?
And you don’t think you’re earlobe deep in hyperbole?
Good thing that “trying to kill” claim is not happening. The floor is open for your “proof”, though. And if you really think that’s happening, why isn’t your party demanding Obama be removed from office, at the very least? Did you realize Scott Brown, for one, said Obama is a great guy? What’s up with that?
And really. We’re all trying to kill you? Blue Dog Democrats are trying to kill you? Mitt Romney was trying to kill you when he said in debate he would back a national form of a health care mandate? Hatch and Grassley were trying to kill you when they sponsorred a bill with a personal mandate in the Clinton years? Again..Warren Buffet is on board with the “MARXIST”, so he’s trying to kill you or is he just brainwashed?
If you honestly believe this, just what are you going to do about it? Not to mention, just what are your plans for those of us who disagree with you? Hmmm? A precise answer would be appreciated if you think you’re dead right.
next to BHO over Liberty’s half-dead body after they had gang-raped her. Don’t like that visual? Sorry, but it’s an accurate caricature of exactly what transpired.
And David Horowitz called the idiot Birthers and their excusers a bad sign of Sore Loserism on the Right. This may be worse.
BTW – I wonder if Dr. Smith sees this as a sign of (ahem)..empathy and respect?
As far as this administration and this Congress is concerned, the Constitution is no longer a barrier to their collectivist, socially suicidal policy.
Again – just shouting something is not enough. Prove it. How long do you think it will take the Supreme Court to decide in your favor? And again, if this is as severe as you claim it is, where is the Republican party? They should be racing to impeach Obama, at the least. I’m interested in your update on how that is going.
The simple fact....I’ve heard that nonsense a zillion times.
No – it’s not a fact. It’s your highly emotional, highly partisan opinion. Prove something instead of justifying your hyperbolic, overwrought rage. And try answering my civil questions, Angry Goy.
BTW..I know the odds of finding one “we conservatives are soooooo good, sych victims, and those awful liberals are soooooooooooo bad” but some other folks may look in and might find this amusing.
They’re not just people who lost an election (cleanly and fairly), they didn’t just lose on a political bill, they’re trying to be killed by posters.
“It often makes a psychopath worse to show empathy for him, as he will take advantage of it.”
My, that is such a corker.
Monty Python: “Help, help, I’m being repressed!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXnZUCAu8c
@345. MissNicky: – Cartoons that were far less imflammory got a lot of criticism from the Right.
Probably because – at least if you’re referring to some of the ones I remember – they were based on media-induced delusions intended solely to demonize the Bush Administration (oh, for instance, this one… or this…) not on reality. But even if they weren’t, where’s your point? Oh, wait…
- The freedom of speech exists on both sides.
Not according to people like Kiteley, which was what triggered this whole topic. Or maybe (probably) you never actually read Jeff’s post on this incident.
- We aren’t allowed to express ourselves?
That’s your straw man. Why does the left rely upon this fallacy so relentlessly? No one claimed you “weren’t allowed” to express yourselves. That you seem incapable, collectively, of doing so without ridicule, mendacity, vitriol and incessant abuse of logical fallacy is what’s most interesting.
Meanwhile, what you seem to think you’re allowed to do – at least in your own words – is demand and expect a “defense” of the same sort of crap we saw slung at Bush by the left for the better part of a decade. Say, “I don’t like this,” and kindly move your sorry butt along. Beyond that, no one gives a flying fig what your personal opinion is on the matter. Why? Because you have already utterly discredited yourself by supporting the rape of this nation through partisan deceit, bribery, procedural excess and fraud. The left’s collective(ist) opinion on this is not worth the bandwidth required to reproduce it, as Dr. Helen’s post demonstrates.
- You think people on a MESSAGE BOARD are trying to kill you?
LOL!!! No dear, that’s your straw man. You clearly don’t understand caricature, so I suppose it’s no surprise to learn that you don’t comprehend metaphor either. Perhaps you haven’t matured to the point where you’re capable of thinking in anything but concrete terms. Either way, read it again and try to avoid the knee-jerk urge to exaggerate it into something it’s clearly not intended to convey. In case you’re wondering, this response is EXACTLY the sort of blind idiocy that leads to articles like the one above.
- Again – just shouting something is not enough. Prove it.
Prove what? The fact that 14 of the United States agree with me? Do the (simple) math – that’s almost half the number required to call for an Article V Convention. And that’s after only ten days.
But okay, we can play your game. ‘Cuz it works both ways. Let’s try this…
I’m sure you have handy – as all leftist trolls like you must by now – a link to the section in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the authority to require certain citizens to purchase a product in the private sector whether they want it, need it, can afford it, or not – threat of under federal penalties/fines and possible imprisonment.
You must also certainly have access to an online synopsis of how a budget reconciliation procedure – which the Democrat party has exclaimed in stentorian tones was never, never, NEVER intended to act as a shield for controversial legislation – how that can be used to pass legislation that not only adds enormous deficits, and which will lead to reduction of revenue by further destroying the economy, but which is in fact more the scope of a Constitutional Amendment than a simple “Act” – at least as reflected by its BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION and the fact that it grants Congress the above-mentioned powers, which are not enumerated in the Constitution, per se.
Kindly post these links and we can discuss them. When you do, please be prepared to offer your thoughts on the following:
Where in the Constitution is Congress granted authority to determine – at its whim (since we know exactly how utterly innumerate government is) – the level of income below which an individual is no longer required to purchase whatever product the government decides to force upon the rest of us? Demonstrate in your own words how the current incarnation of socialized medicine is not essentially a bill of attainder aimed at penalizing a specific segment of the population for the express financial benefit of another segment.
Where in the Constitution is Congress granted authority to determine for each citizen whether or not that citizen can afford to purchase a mandated product? Note that this is a very different question from above.
Where in Senator Byrd’s long tirade does he explain how the Reconciliation process can be applied to the passage of a mandate for health insurance – which the Constitution gives Congress no authority to legislate – but can’t be applied to the areas Congress IS authorized to legislate, like taxes? And while you’re at it, please note that the tax law changes did, in fact, ultimately result in revenue/spending trends that were, in fact, RECONCILING the federal budget… right up until the Democrats were elected to a majority in Congress.
Now, you can forget the “commerce clause” – that gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce; it doesn’t give Congress the authority to mandate commerce, much less within the boundaries of a single State.
You can also forget about the “general Welfare” clause – which isn’t so much a clause as a few words buried in a larger context. That phrase refers to authority over actions that benefit the entire citizenry (i.e., “the States”) as a whole. It does not confer the authority to pass legislation that benefits only a single demographic. Also, this phrase doesn’t give Congress any more authority above those powers clearly enumerated. Madison and Jefferson were very clear on its meaning:
James Madison:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. … With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Thomas Jefferson:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
When you post your response, do feel free to write “I don’t know” to any of this. It’s so rare in this world for someone to admit their ignorance, don’t you agree?
Also, do feel free to simply copy and paste the following: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” If you agree with Nancy Pelosi’s crack legal opinion on all of the above, it’ll be useful to know.
- …if this is as severe as you claim it is, where is the Republican party?
They are busy doing what they’ve been doing for over ten years: acting as willing enablers for the socialists in Congress. Why do you think the TEA Party has gotten as big as it has.
- …Angry Goy
Heh. Love them straw men, don’t you. What I am is a combination of appalled and amused. You’ve never seen me angry. You wouldn’t like it, etc.
goy – The issue was never whether you, like and appreciated the comic. Your stance and position is quite well known
The comic is blatantly racist, implying that black men are rapists and by extension that perhaps our President needs to be lynched. Now, maybe that’s fine with you. Maybe you are a racist and are comfortable with this kind of message. I’d like to think that you don’t feel that way.
However, if Conservatives do not like being called racists, perhaps they should think twice before printing something stupid like this.
Goldstein has every right to print whatever he feels like. He just can’t convince me that he’s being wrongly treated when someone objects to having their name on a website that prints this kind of “humor”. Nor would I want my name or link on a friend or associate’s website if they pictured the “gang rape” you described.
There is always a lowest common denominator, you don’t have to appeal to it to make a point.
Hamilton on the “general Welfare” clause
“The terms `general Welfare’ were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare’ and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.”
So, yes I will claim that the authority to mandate health care can be found in the constitution. I think to provide for the general welfare is clear. I assume you are a strict interpreter of the constitution. As such it is explicit that congress does have the power. And my side of the argument has someone how wrote a lot of the federalist papers.
#447 goy — In case you’re wondering, this response is EXACTLY the sort of blind idiocy that leads to articles like the one above.
Are you referring to the article that says liberals are disrespectful and lack civility because they say things like those who disagree are blind idiots?
“In a desperate, ghoulish plea for attention (now that even right wing sites are no longer linking to it), Protein Wisdom has published an editorial cartoon portraying President Obama as a gloating, unrepentant rapist with Lady Liberty his weeping victim, her torch lying broken at the foot of the bed. Rapist Obama tells Lady Liberty to stop whining, get herself cleaned up, and promises he’ll be back later with “friends,” i.e., a gang-rape.”–James Wolcott
Sounds to me like that cartoon summarizes 150 years of the Democrat Party: the Trail of Tears, chattel slavery, military conscription, putting innocent people in concentration camps, and now their latest form of involuntary servitude, forcing person A to work to pay person B’s medical bills (or to prop up General Motors or whatever they’re currently stealing money for).
So, I don’t see what the complaint is all about. Democrats have been raping Ms. Liberty from the day their foul political party came crawling out from under some rock.
And, I don’t see any particular reason to be polite about it.
Here is a factoid for everyone on this forum to ponder: There was a recent poll after the Scott Brown triumph in Massachusetts regarding the health reform issue. Of those people who voted Obama for president AND then Brown for Senate, MORE thought that Obama was NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH than going to far.
So those of you who think that Brown’s victory was a repudiation of Obama had better reconsider your conclusion.
#350 Dave Surls — And, I don’t see any particular reason to be polite about it.
Do tell.
Meanwhile 335 posts here suggest that it’s leftist immature or poorly developed morals that lead to lefty snarkiness.
I was so totally buying that, too.
Question for the day: who on the right has advocated “giving up”?
I’ve seen many conservatives and moderates say that fighting fire with fire (if Ted Rall publishes a deliberately offensive cartoon, that makes it OK for conservatives to do the same) makes us equally guilty.
I’ve heard many conservatives argue that it’s not the Left we’re trying to convince, but the middle. Because, you know, neither side is numerous enough to win a national election without the middle.
When was the last time you saw anyone on the Left back down just because we gave them a dose of their own medicine? Have they stopped yet?
If they have, I haven’t noticed it. If anything, their attacks are more frequent and virulent than ever. Which tends to imply that fighting fire with fire isn’t terribly effective.
There are a lot of straw men being thrown out here:
1. No one I’ve seen says we should give up.
2. No one I’ve seen says we shouldn’t correct them when they lie or object when they are offensive.
3. I haven’t seen anyone argue that it’s the Left we’re trying to win over. What they ARE saying is that when we descend to their level, independents (you know, the folks we can’t win elections without?) can no longer see any difference between us and them.
It feels good to hit back, and hit back hard. It feels good to treat them the way they treat us. And if our only goal is to make the Left angry, I guess that’s good tactics.
If, on the other hand, our goal is to win elections by convincing independents that we will do a better job of running this country, getting down in the gutter with the Dems is of questionable value.
@348. Lefty: – The comic is blatantly racist, …
LOL!!!!!! That’s the first time I’ve seen this particular stretch, although I’m sure I’ve missed plenty of them. Of course, I’ve seen actual, you know, blatant racism, and it’s rarely, if ever open to interpretation.
But so… what you’re saying, in so many words, is that ANY inflammatory caricature of BHO that actually depicts him, in the flesh, doing something awful… is automatically racist??!! Because HE happens to be half-black??!! And because YOU want to interpret it that way simply out of guilt (i.e., see Dave Surls’ perceptive comment above)??
Man, I wish I had that kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card! But I’m just an old white guy.
Again – Stuck on Stupid. Unless you can tell me what I’m thinking right now (which would imply that you knew what Darlene was thinking when she created the cartoon). I’ll give you a hint: it’s not kind.
.
@349. Brian N: – … I will claim that the authority to mandate health care can be found in the constitution.
Okay Brian, you get points for effort – you actually went looking for something to support your position. You should apply for the soon-to-be-vacant job of Speaker of the House, since she’s never bothered even to do that.
But the question is: does this cherry-picked passage actually support your position? Really? Based on what? You copied and pasted a quote, yes. But you provided no rationale whatsoever explaining how the power “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” has suddenly, magically morphed into the power “to selectively mandate a private sector purchase”. That new authority, I’m afraid, would required a Constitutional Amendment, not just a simple Act of Congress (much less an Act passed using bribery, fraud and procedural violations).
Hamilton, is not on “your side” of the argument simply because you copied and pasted something he wrote which sounds to you like what you want to believe. Here’s another section of that same missive, which you conveniently neglected to include [my emph.]:
“The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
Here, your ex-buddy Hamilton undercuts your position in two ways.
First and most simply, a mandate for a private sector purchase is NOT an “appropriation of money”, which is the specific authority he’s referring to here. Rather, a mandate for a private sector purchase is enforced commerce – the money isn’t being appropriated by the government, it’s being paid to a private firm. The general Welfare phrase is buried in a clause which discusses Congress’ power to appropriate funds, not to place private sector mandates upon some citizens. That’s fail #1.
Second, Hamilton is clearly speaking regionally (i.e., “General and not local”). This rationale is easily applied to support demographic inclusivity as well. That is, “throughout the Union” clearly means ALL of the People, equally, not just the social group, class or demographic of citizens any particular Congress or administration wants to penalize (or, conversely, buy votes from). That’s fail #2.
Good work. Try harder.
.
@350. G.L. Alston: – Are you referring to the article that says liberals are disrespectful and lack civility because they say things like those who disagree are blind idiots?
No. Idiocy means doing “something notably stupid or foolish” – in this case, intentionally. Blind – as in, say, blind rage – can mean “oblivious to the consequences”. As such – and this may be a distinction too subtle for you – blind idiocy does not require an actual living, breathing blind idiot. Your own excursion into circular idiocy, above, is proof enough of that, Alston.
Factseeker, you don’t seek very far do you? Scott Brown ran in the PRIMARY as well as the general election as Scott Brown #41 Do you understand what that means? Do you realize that no matter what statistics you try to hide behind, it just makes you look stupid to make that claim?
What was the quote someone just had? Liberals are swatting at a swarm of bees and trying to stick their fingers in a million holes in the dam? Good luck trying to stem the tide with “facts” that even you don’t believe.
Massachusetts already had RomneyCare. What did they care?
Anyways, take a time out to ponder yourself some Sam Adams:
A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.
While we debate the fine points of the differences between those who believe that the have the right to dictate the terms of our existence to all of us and those who believe that no such right exists, we overlook the inevitable consequences of the triumph of the former over the latter. This certainly appears to be the case here and now.
So how can one prevail over the collectivist monkeys who now seem to have gotten the upper hand? Author Tom Baugh has perhaps the best advice in that regard: starve them. Do check out http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com. If you can read the first chapter of his book without putting it down, then you are most likely a man, not a monkey.
There’s no comfort to be found in his work if you’re looking for ‘answers’ or a ‘solution’. Sometimes there are no solutions, only consequences. Monkeys will not survive the consequenecs of the engine of destruction that they’ve built. Men may, if they are prudent.
Baugh contends that the path the collectivist monkeys have set upon for all of us is basically irreversable, and the the destination is one that has been common to many of our world’s civilizations: broad collapse. This time around, that collapse will likely be broad and deep – not a Dark ages, but a Dark Aeon. Baugh suggwests that we stand a chance of avoiding that outcome if we make use of what every martial arts practitioner knows: use your opponets’ energy to hasten their downfall. If we can kick the slats out from under the monkey collective by precipitating the collapse, we stand a better chance of rebuilding a more sane and lasting civilization with more of the worlds resources and technology intact. Thus: starve the monkeys.
If that seems a tad, well, extreme, then consider the following questions:
When your opponents lack the price of admission to civilized debate: a respect for reason, belief in objective truth, and a willingness to admit they’re wrong when the facts prove it so – what then?
When your opponents’ goals are to destroy the very foundation of your culture and your society – and to offer nothing in return but the howling nightmare of a society of cannibals and looters – what then?
When your opponents seize and indoctrinate your children’s’ minds in the politics of victimization and the nobility of human servitude and sacrifice – what then?
When the institutions of higher learning are occupied by Marxist multiculturalists who despise the very philosophical foundation upon which the architecture of liberty and human dignity have been be constructed – what then?
We know the answer – as Samuel P. Huntington said, “History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society.”
Starve the monkeyes, people…
derf – so, if they didn’t care, why didn’t the bluest of blue states vote for the dem candidate instead of Scott Brown #41?
One would assume, being that it is a very liberal electorate, that they would vote with the democratic candidate unless they had a reason to vote otherwise. What reason do you put forth that they chose to go Republican other than the fact that he ran on being the 41st vote against health care.
It is like a school yard brawl: who started it and why?
What tools or language was used to upset the target of the attack?Did the target respond in unfitting proportion to the attack?
Were both parties injured?
Will there be a reconcilation to end the brawl?
Who really looks better, after the brawl?
The conservatives started the brawl because they can’t stand losing. (in the elections)
They used filthy language, lies and as tools, their FOX blowhorn.
The Dems did not realize what happened to them, but then refuted the lies, stretched out their hands to work together and got bit again. (the Party of NOOO)
Both the attacker and the target were hurt because the public is too uninformed to make its mind and so blamed both.
There was another move for reconciliation by the President with the result that the Attackers from the conservative end of the GOP spit and yelled and put up unspeakable unpatriotic signs in front of the cameras.
There will be reconciliation as soon as the conservative end understands that they are being had and drawn into attacking by their ULTRA conservatives. the so called Jihadists of USA.
Right now, the Liberals are winning. Don’t you see how low everyone is in the polls?
“Not according to people like Kiteley, which was what triggered this whole topic. Or maybe (probably) you never actually read Jeff’s post on this incident.”
I have a hard time understanding how a guy asking another guy to remove the first guy’s name from the second guy’s website is some kind of violation of the second guy’s constitutional rights. Last I checked, Kiteley wasn’t telling Goldstein he couldn’t say anything, just that he didn’t want his name used on Goldsten’s site. Oh, and Kiteley called Goldstein a “jerk,” which is bad because that’s like totally the worst name ever.
- I have a hard time understanding how a guy asking another guy to remove the first guy’s name from the second guy’s website is some kind of violation of the second guy’s constitutional rights.
Your difficulty is not a surprise, given that your “re-imagining” here is just a tad different from the actual event as it transpired. But you go with that. And enjoy your self-delusion.
Why is it that so many self-described “liberals” (read: leftists) have such a problem coping with actual, you know, reality? Oh wait…
If you can actually show where Kiteley somehow suppressed Goldstein’s free speech rights, I’d love to see it. Otherwise, continue linking to your own posts that I won’t read.
@Liberal Free Speaker – If you can actually show where Kiteley somehow suppressed Goldstein’s free speech rights, I’d love to see it.
Don’t need to. No one claimed Jeff’s rights were suppressed. That only happened in your “re-imagined” version of the incident (aka Straw Man). Maybe you should actually go READ Jeff’s post on this. It might help with your confusion.
Oh wait… you don’t read posts that conflict with your view. Never mind. Enjoy the confusion, the feel of your fingers stuck in your ears and the sound of your own voice going “LALALALALALALAI’MNOTLISTENINGLALALALALALA!!!”
Kids.
Miss Nicky wrote “The freedom of speech exists on both sides.”
You replied “Not according to people like Kiteley, which was what triggered this whole topic. Or maybe (probably) you never actually read Jeff’s post on this incident.”
Care to revise your statement?
@Liberal Free Speaker – Care to revise your statement?
What for? Kiteley didn’t “suppress” anything. AGAIN: that’s YOUR straw man. AGAIN: go read the post in question, then maybe you’ll have a clue.
Just a little bit of history for the Nazis-are-right-wingers crowd – from the horses mouth, so to speak:
“The Party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the Party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the Party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism – not such trifles as the private means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper…”
“The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. The gaze fascinated at one or two superficialities, such as possessions and income or rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime, they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
Adolph Hitler – Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction pp 191-193
goy – You are a unique and special little goy snowflake. I could never know your intimate and personal unique thoughts.
Unless I watched Fox News.
Lefty, you have an arsty way with ad hominem, but in the end it’s just another way of avoiding reality.
goy – We don’t really agree on reality. You’re out there in fringe territory with the birthers and the Obama is a Socialist who is destroying America types. It’s a great hobby horse for you to ride and you obviously like to trot around.
I most certainly would never get in the way of a gentleman riding his hobby horse, but the people on the Left who you’re emulating, the Bush = Hitler’s, the 9/11 Truthers. They’re a bunch of asshats. I’m not sure why people like Darlene and you feel you have to one-up bad behavior on the Left to make a point but hey, that’s your trip.
However if you’re out there in fringe-ville making your hard-core statement about the “Truth of the Rape of America”, you can’t be surprised nor can you call it censorship or lack of empathy or disrespect if someone wants to take several steps away from you.
@Lefty – You’re out there in fringe territory…
According to… er… you? Heh. Heheh. Sorry, don’t mean to laugh, but it’s hard to take “fringe territory” seriously when uttered by someone who can’t objectively identify what’s “racist” about Darlene’s cartoon without resorting to a straw man.
- … if someone wants to take several steps away from you.
Take many, many steps. As I’ve already noted to MissNicky. NO ONE is stopping you.
I think most conservatives and libertarians are pretty much past caring about the juvenile tactics of the left and their calls for all people and all things to conform to what they believe is ideal.
I always wonder what it is that the left wants? It’s like some sort of black and white zombie movie where everything and everyone must be the same. We must have the correct thoughts, no one can get out of line, any advantage must be squashed so that none of these little babies feel that life is unfair – to them.
358. Ward Dorrity:
Ever read Vonnegut’s Player Piano? A more believable threat to individualism, IMO. Lets see you solve that one!
—————————————–
359. Becky:
First, Massachusetts isn’t as blue as you think. Governor Romney(R) was preceeded by Swift(R), was preceeded by Cellucci(R), was preceeded by Weld(R).
Second, it looked like Massachusetts R cared more about the “41st” thing than did D, so the independents carried the day.
Some insight into how independents vote? Here’s my take:
http://images.politico.com/global//blogs/brown%20coakley.jpg
As an added bonus, here’s a flip side with a D beating an R in a reddest of red area:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/10/hoffman-owens-new-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg
Fixed your typos.
“I think many conservatives (guessing ..Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, David Frum, Bruce Bartlett, Bob Barr, Michael Smerconish and Charles Johnson) and libertarians are pretty much past caring about the juvenile tactics of the right and their calls for all people and all things to conform to what they believe is ideal.
I always wonder what it is that the right wants? It’s like some sort of black and white zombie movie where everything and everyone must be the same. We must have the correct thoughts, no one can get out of line, any advantage must be squashed so that none of these little babies feel that life is unfair – to them.”
Good point. Look at the vast majority of the posts here. A professor who only made a very polite request to a blogger who has a fondness for slamming anyone who won’t agree with him, plus he enjoys scatological insults and at times, threats of violence. Now why did he think it was so unfair to receive that polite request? Why should that man’s name be announced on that blog, with hundreds of negative posts aimed at him, over a mere difference of opinion?
Why would millions of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grannies, grandpas, uncles, aunts, vets, those currently serving int he military, clergymen and women be called “psychopaths” (or scum, or worse) because they are liberals with a differing opinion? (Or conservatives, of course, just in case people missed what I said before.)
Why would having a politely stated opinion translated into treating someone badly? Yes, it is a good question. Yes – that is babyish.
Good night, folks.
- A professor who only made a very polite request…
Heh. Yeah, go with that.
Derf, I have no problem believing that independents carried the day. I guess I am not sure what point you are making.
I was responding to factseeker’s comment: “Of those people who voted Obama for president AND then Brown for Senate, MORE thought that Obama was NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH than going to(sic) far. So those of you who think that Brown’s victory was a repudiation of Obama had better reconsider your conclusion.”
One can only believe this kind of “fact” if one can’t face reality. Just to be clear, they don’t think Obama is going far enough, so they vote for the candidate who makes it his platform to go even further the other direction. A study said so and it was in print, thus it is true. Yeah….oookkkkaaaay. Sure. No need for to worry that petty liberal air-head. Have some more koolaid.
Player Piano, huh? I’m supposed to be impressed at your pretense to literary accomplishment? God, I haven’t read Vonnegut since college, but let’s see if I remember: Vonnegut’s premise was that American industry is run by a clique of fabulously wealthy and powerful managers and engineers. The rest of us are serfs, right?
Vonnegut’s work was for the most part dark, satirical and science fiction. I can point to any number of dystopian works, all of which make good reading i nthe ‘waht-if’ category. Thing is, none of that has any resemblance to the reality of the sort of entrepreneurship and innovation that spurred the revolution in information technology or in any number of fields here in America. It’s the Marxist-socialist utopian worldview that makes reades like derf think they’ve got a purchase on some special knowledge about the way things work. About right for a naive college student. Or a collectivist monkey.
Got news for you vanguard elitist wanna-bes: no nation on earth ever taxed itself into prosperity. Ever. No empire based upon loot and slavery ever lasted. Most of them left atrocity, slaughter and impoverishment in their trajectory through history.
But don’t feel bad. I want to help you. I want to assist you in your efforts to crash this civilization. I want to assist you on your road to disaster in any way that I can. To that end,
I have already collapsed my business down to just what it takes to get my family by. I let all of my employees go over this last year. I’ve also made it plain on my website that if you are one one of 0bama’s cheerleaders, I won’t serve you. If you’re another one of those collectivist monkeys with a big fat sense of entitlement – I refuse to do business with you. I can do that. I will continue to do that. Until you all starve.
You see, Galt’s Gulch is both a state of mind and a plan of action. As Rand has said – you can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. If I’m correct, most of you won’t survive the consequences of your very bad choices.
Hey Ward – you’re not alone.
This is encouraging – as are the billboards that are beginning to spring up all over the country. check out http://www.billboardsagainstobama.com. They’re not the first to stand up billboards like that, but they are the first to make it easy for others to get in the game.
You know, the thing that collectivist monkeys on both the Left and the Right utterly fail to aprehend is that their behavior sooner or later leads to the collapse of whatever civilization they happen to infest. Tom Baugh’s take on this is exrtaordinarily perceptive – he’s a libertarian in a Robert Heinlein meets Ayn Rand sort of way. No one escapes his criticism and hard truth observations in his book, Starving the Monkeys. Baugh articulates that uneasy ticking in the back of my head that says that the present course of our civilization is unsustainable. The intersection of the curves of GNP and social entitlements is a receding image in the rearview mirror of most European democratic welfare states, Greece being the most recent and prominent of them.
The problem for them – and very soon for America – is that sooner or later the monkey pellet machine runs out of pellets. Then the fun begins.
A growing number of individuals like myself are doing their best to stop fillign the pellet machine. If Baugh is correct – and I believe that his unfortunately is – that’s the best thing we can do. We waste our time debating with the walking dead.
Miss Nicky – Conservatives want a level playing field to PURSUE happiness. Liberals want everyone to be the same. Everyone believes their own way of thinking is the correct way. It goes without saying, does it not? But it is the liberals that want the government to step in and tell us what cars we can drive, what foods we can eat, what thoughts are acceptable, what speech is acceptable. Soon, we’ll drive home in drab little cars to our drab little apartments from our drab little jobs and think our drab little thoughts as we eat our drab little food. All govenment sanctioned of course. We can’t have anyone getting more than their fair share, now can we! It’s the new liberal way. It used to be that “liberals” were for liberty. Now they are just for having the government tell us all what do and think. It’s for our own good of course. Some people can’t restrain themselves from eating too many Big Mac’s, so we need the government to control the menu.
And as for this comment:
“Why would millions of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grannies, grandpas, uncles, aunts, vets, those currently serving int he military, clergymen and women be called “psychopaths” (or scum, or worse) because they are liberals with a differing opinion? (Or conservatives, of course, just in case people missed what I said before.)”
Does it occur to you that Helen isn’t talking about the ones who DO have empathy? She’s only referring to those who do not. Yes, you can find people like that on the right too. It’s just that anyone who has ever dared to leave the liberal reservation as quickly discovered that there are far more shrill minders on the left, willing to scream “witch” or “racist” rather than debate in good faith.
There is a reason Obama’s numbers are tanking. All of the liberals who do have empathy are leaving him. They can see that Obama’s policies are not kind and caring, they are just government theft of your tax dollars to be redistributed to his cronies. The rest are too busy screaming racist, teabagger and homophobe to notice.
Too bad. It appears that some posts have been wiped out, the set up is different so it can be harder to find the end of the comments and it’s just as several liberals were posting, making reasonable arguments.
Just in case, I can get through. And here were several things I wanted to respond about, but I’ll stick with this.
But so… what you’re saying, in so many words, is that ANY inflammatory caricature of BHO that actually depicts him, in the flesh, doing something awful… is automatically racist??!!
You really might look more honest if you let the man speak for himself.
I’ll remind you, again – there was an outbreak of RW pundit ourage over a cartoon that mocked Condoleezza Rice as a parrot . There were same that were questionable but None of them evoked the violent imagery of a sneering black man, post-rape.
” Left Hits New Low: Disgusting, Racist Treatment of Dr. Rice” — Rush Limbaugh
“Limbaugh, Hannity Protest Racist Attacks on Rice”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/17/220758.shtml
There are many more if you do a search. But we’re mocked for saying the far worse Protein Wisdom cartoon is racist. Does’t that seem like a double standard? At the least, there’s good reason to object.
@ MissNicky – It appears that some posts have been wiped out, the set up is different so it can be harder to find the end of the comments and it’s just as several liberals were posting, making reasonable arguments.
LOL!!!! Paranoia and detachment from reality all in one run-on sentence. How apropos. As for finding the “end” of the comments, geez, how lame ARE you, anyway. The “end” of the comments is at the top of the screen if you click on the article’s “Comments” link.
That said, I think this new layout sucks royally. There’s no more comment permalinks, so there’s no longer any way to link back to specific examples of blind liberal idiocy. The comments are in reverse-chron order but the replies aren’t. If there’s more than 50 or 60 comments on an article, good luck spending all day clicking the “<< Older Comments" link to find something. You can no longer search the site's comments with Google and locate a particular comment.
I think PJM has pretty much jumped the shark here, finally.
- … let the man speak for himself.
He – assuming it’s a “he” – doesn’t seem interested in anything other than ad hominem. I’d link to the post but we can’t do that anymore – just as several liberals were posting, making the most ridiculous “arguments”. The “Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!!!” charge is so overused and worn out as to be laughable.
- There were same that were questionable but None of them evoked the violent imagery of a sneering black man, post-rape.
That’s because Rice never did anything as overtly rapacious as BHO did, in pursuit of his unconstitutional socialized medicine agenda.
- But we’re mocked for saying the far worse Protein Wisdom cartoon is racist.
That’s right. Mocked. Do consider yourself mocked, big time, if you think the cartoon was “racist”. It’s not racist. It’s an accurate political caricature of what just happened.
Wait, let me APOLOGIZE to MissNicky – she’s not lame at all, at least if I can take her meaning as follows…
Unless there’s more changes coming, while the last comment posted is right at the top of the list, unless I’m missing something (highly plausible), it’s now completely impossible to find the last reply that was posted in a thread – unless one likes spending all day clicking the “<< Older Comments" link and scrolling down every page.
MissNicky, if that's what you meant by "the end of the comments“, then I completely agree!!
MIssNicky, we had some hiccups with the new commenting system. We’ve now restored the older-to-newer order and re-instituted the permalinks, so one hopes it’s gotten better again.
Hey Charlie -
Just one guy talkin’ here, but this threaded reply thing is a little more trouble than it’s worth, IMHO.
When an article inspires this many comments, scrolling through 400+ messages to locate the latest reply borders on the impractical. Plus, it looks like the nesting is limited anyway, so after a few exchanges, a “conversation” has to either be “re-nested” by replying to a previous comment (which kind of defeats the purpose of the indentation) or re-started by posting the reply at the end (anyway).
Just $0.02 for the cause.
Ward Dorrity,
I haven’t read Vonnegut since grade school. But I’m still curious about how individualists would keep the government from taking over when computers and robots have all the jobs. Instead of using un-empathetic criticism as a crutch, show me how clever you are and come up with some ideas that aren’t regurgitated quotations from Rand or Marx.
Becky,
My point, which is pure speculation, is that in those two cases (R in a D zone, D in an R zone), the more heroic, manly, and powerful looking person won. Is this why republicans keep bringing the military-statist tough guys, instead of wimps like Ayn Rand, Ron Paul and Justin Raimondo? …because they wouldn’t get the votes otherwise?
You haven’t lost the debate – you were never in it in the first place. Please come up with something better than snarky non-sequiturs and we’ll chat.
No, it looks like we’ll “chat” only when you have a soapbox to stand on. Read me now and understand me later, but objectivists must have ideas that reach those people who don’t care that you wearing a rational merit badge.
She’s only referring to those who do not.
That’s convenient, but when she launched into that smug-sounding criticism and generalizing she showed no respect for the professor who ws right to his own opinion. He was very polite to Goldstein. Goldstein couldn’t accept it. Seems to me, in a fair world, both have a right to their opinions. Done.
There’s an endless list of posts here that did everything Dr. Smith said she objected to, but it was toward liberals. We’re ignorant, we’re scum, we should be fired, we should leave the country. I kept waiting for the snicker, and then a return to sounding respectful even if standing with strong disagreements but it didn’t happen.
I loathe that kind of thing from the left, too. Most people admit they have conservatives they like if they’e pressed. A couple of people were reasonable, (bless ‘em!) but more posts were the kind I described.
All of the liberals who do have empathy are leaving him.
I don’t know where you are getting these baseless ideas. Where did that come from? The clear blue air? If I have any more empathy, they’re going to call me a bleeding-heart liberal. A lot of things said here are questionable. That was dead wrong, and I’m being polite.
- He was very polite to Goldstein.
Again, go with that. Revisionism is not a river in …
…oh, nevermind.
Miss Nicky, Am I pulling it out of the clear blue sky? Are you serious? You are either unaware of Obama’s poll numbers and thus a grossly uninformed person or you are aware of them and either can’t grasp what they mean or refuse to argue in good faith their significance. No sense in discussing this topic further, unless you want to go out and get Obama’s actual numbers by major pollsters like Gallup and explain to me why they DON’T mean that people are leaving him in droves. It is such a no-brainer that I have no intention on wasting my time as you attempt to delude yourself further.
As for your comment that “how convenient”. Yes, it is isn’t it? Funny that my comment was convenient. Of course, it doesn’t surprise me that you would be highly offended that Helen was not “fair” by giving 100% equal time (and making her blog post 6,000,000 words) to expand her subject to include any and all groups who might have members that lack empathy. Is there a 1-800 number we can dial to report her to the government for focusing only on the liberals who do it? I think that violates the Fairness Act.
Also, I’m curious. Have you ever spent days furiously condemning Ted Rall’s offensive cartoons, or Keith Olberman’s comments unfairly smearing the “right wing”. Somehow, I don’t think so, but good for you if you did.
derf. Okaaay. Yes, I’m sure their appearance is the only reason. If you say so. (backing away slowly)
So Owens beat Hoffman because…?
Because the RNC/GOP supported the RINO candidate until it was clear who actually had grassroots support.
Hello Helen, I wrote about this subject myself at the link below, perhaps it will be helpful. I am so glad I discovered your blog!
Chuck Norton
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/01/the-virtue-of-the-brainy-bunch/
Becky..
Miss Nicky, Am I pulling it out of the clear blue sky? Are you serious? You are either unaware of Obama’s poll numbers and thus a grossly uninformed person or you are aware of them and either can’t grasp what they mean or refuse to argue in good faith their significance.
How ironic since you stated something you made up. You said ALL were leaving him ..did you not? Yes..you did. That’s what I was talking about.
“All of the liberals who do have empathy are leaving him. “
You’re griping at me as not being factual? So prove that claim. You can’t because you made it up. I have empathy, I’ve been trying like hell to say I understand the frustration some have. I know a lot of people who feel the way I do. And they aren’t fleeing Obama’s overall. I’m still a bit amused by this Clintonesque obsession with polls, but anyway..
.
it doesn’t surprise me that you would be highly offended that Helen was not “fair” by giving 100% equal time (and making her blog post 6,000,000 words) to expand her subject to include any and all groups who might have members that lack empathy.
Whew…another long load of hyperbole. A few words would have worked just fine. I thought it was deeply puzzling than anything. But I have been offended by such one-sided, partisan smears on conservatives. I’ve said that many times.
Have you ever spent days furiously condemning Ted Rall’s offensive cartoons, or Keith Olberman’s comments unfairly smearing the “right wing”. Somehow, I don’t think so, but good for you if you did.
Rall,in particular, has been so obnoxious I’d love to smack him with a frying pan and I’ve said so before. (According to some, we aren’t supposed to criticize cartoons, but I do.) Olbermann was also gone way to far, but in at least one case, showed Jon Stewart’s entire segment on his vile rant at Scott Brown and admitted he was dead wrong. I don’t take it personally that others can’t stand Olbermann. (And yet he never called Bush a rapist.) It would be nice to see the same about the protected Goldstein, Rush, Beck, etc. Why so much ire just for not liking some of what they do? They don;’t have to agree. They could just have..what’s the word…empathy.
I’d love to hear if anyone here has gotten as furious at Rush for being snide about the suffering in Haiti or the weird rants by Glenn Beck at many liberals and his “skit” where he pretended to poison Nancy Pelosi. Since you brought up that kind of thing.
HEY PJM!!!
It’s been fun, but life’s simply too short for some things.
Enjoy the fish.
Goy, perhaps you’ve understood by now, the format changed. When I used the link I had been using and inched back, back (many times)… back – the posts stopped early. I used a different link on the site, and found the new posts, but the darn thing flipped around.
Then I screwed up the “bold” feature. “Blast and drat” at myself. Oh for a “preview” option, so I could edit a lot of things, including…run on sentences. My bad.
LOL!!!! Paranoia and detachment from reality all in one run-on sentence. How apropos. As for finding the “end” of the comments, geez, how lame ARE you, anyway. The “end” of the comments is at the top of the screen if you click on the article’s “Comments” link.
I think PJM has pretty much jumped the shark here, finally.
doesn’t seem interested in anything other than ad hominem.
Considering the number of times liberals have been smeared, as a group and as individuals, just in this thread..that’s pretty funny. You can try but you can’t deny – RWers called a harmless political cartoon the worst racist thing they’d ever seen, with Rice as a parrot, echoing Bush’s words.
That’s because Rice never did anything as overtly rapacious as BHO did, in pursuit of his unconstitutional socialized medicine agenda.
I’ve yet to see Mitt Romney, Grassley, Hatch called filthy names for their past support for a federal mandate on insurance. If you can’t allow for a differing opinion on that cartoon… well, the irony strikes again.
. It’s an accurate political caricature of what just happened.
Maybe to you, I bet not to most people. I’d guess a lot of the conservatives who get grief now for not being RW enough would have big problems with it, also despite being against the bill. It’s not just Frum who ask for the blazing rhetoric to be toned down to a better kind of debate.
If anyone wants to take that cartoon on television..say..Bill O;’Reilly..give it a shot. You thihk you’d get by without even O’Reilly backing away? Good luck. Even he said seeing Obama as a racist or Commie is ridiculous. If you all want to call O’Reilly a LWer, that will make it interesting.
“I’ve yet to see Mitt Romney, Grassley, Hatch called filthy names for their past support for a federal mandate on insurance. ”
Actually, Miss Nicky, we do have a name for such Republican politicians: Vichy Republicans. If the historical reference doesn’t sail right past you, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. I have no use for them, either.
I support only those politicians who articulate a clear defense of individual liberty as our Founders understood it. That was the basis for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and there’s a clear and distinguished pedigree of those ideas behind it. The state existed as the guarantor of those rights, not as the dispensor. jsut the opposite of Leftist thought.
The premises of the Left are fundamentally flawed and yes, evil, for they preseume that your life simply does not belong to you. It’s a first-principles argument that the Left simply cannot win without a gun.
The premises of the Left are fundamentally flawed and yes, evil, for they preseume that your life simply does not belong to you. It’s a first-principles argument that the Left simply cannot win without a gun.
And yet, we’ve survived all these years without that happening. Good thing it’s an extreme generalization.
And if people want to turn on Mitt Romney, Grassley, Hatch with the same level of fury for past endorsements of a federal mandate , I’ll be interested. That would be a great deal more consistent, at least.
Thanks.
And yet, we’ve survived all these years without that happening. Good thing it’s an extreme generalization.
Whew! Well that settles that, eh? I’m sure it’ll come as a surprise to the 220+ million people who have been slaughtered by their own totalitarian and – wait for it – leftist governments in the last 100 years or so. And I’m sure that the hundreds of millions more who lived – and died – in poverty and despair and servitude will find relief in your penetrating analysis.
But hey – let’s assume that I’m wrong and only half that number were true. Although PRof. R. J. Rummel can with some assurance suggest that my original number is actually low. That still renders the ideas that comprise the foundation of leftists and totalitarians everywhere some of the most evil we can imagine. The mere fact that it ‘hasn’t happened here’ doesn’t mean that it can’t. Or won’t if we don’t allow it. The fact that the Marxist meat puppet who occupies the White House has surrounded himself with ‘advisors’ whose Communist, Socialist – and worse – ideas should give you pause. Ideas matter. And the ideas advocated by these advisors are in many cases monstrous. Those ideas all have a common thread – that your life simply does not belong to you.
I submit that we are in fact dealing with monsters. History also tells us what we must do to rid ourselves of these monsters.
– … the format changed.
Yes – see my apology, now above (not below, but who knows for how long…).
- Oh for a “preview” option, …
I mention that frequently here. Charlie just commented at my site that he’s looking into it.
- I think PJM has pretty much jumped the shark here, finally.
I guess you made it to my site.
- Considering the number of times liberals have been smeared, as a group and as individuals, just in this thread..that’s pretty funny.
Not really. Not if you know the difference between ad hominem and simple observation. Or ad hominem and simple mocking. And the fact that you think liberals are “smeared” just goes to show how little regard you have for the truth. When facts are reported that make liberals look bad, that’s what the left considers “smearing”. When rumors – like all the supposed threats, racist epithets, spitting and “violence” directed at Dem Congresscritters who sold their votes – are started with no real evidence, that’s what you consider just. And by “you” I’m of course referring to the left as a collective, hive mind.
- I’ve yet to see Mitt Romney, Grassley, Hatch called filthy names …
“Filthy” names? For what? Did they suborn Congress to get BHO’s socialized medicine agenda? If so, please point out where.
- If you can’t allow for a differing opinion on that cartoon…
But that’s just it – a point you keep (intentionally?) missing – no one is preventing you from expressing your opinion, which you have done repeatedly. Were your comments deleted or blocked? No. Where you go off the rails is in demanding a “defense” of something you don’t like, based solely on your opinion of it. Clearly, Darlene believes – as do many other – that the cartoon is not only self-explanatory, but perfectly accurate and doesn’t need any “defense”.
- Maybe to you, I bet not to most people.
Again, your opinion.
- Even he said seeing Obama as a racist or Commie is ridiculous.
“EVEN” he??? What do you think? Do you really, honestly believe that the entire right blogosphere and all of conservative space is defined by what Bill O’Reilly thinks? I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you, but contrary to the lies you’ve been fed, Fox News does not define the conservative agenda, and O’Reilly is not its official spokesperson and ideological gatekeeper. If anything, he bends over backward to be “fair” to the left because he thinks it makes him look morally superior – especially when it comes to his buddy Obama, for some reason. Don’t be too surprised to find that very few conservatives give a rat’s patoot what O’Reilly thinks about anything.
I see “If Obama is elected, everyone should stiff the waitstaff!” Dr. Helen is actually trying to lecture other people on empathy.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/10/should-you-tip-less-in-obama.html
Say, maybe Tiger Woods can stop by now and lecture us on fidelity!
It’s more hilarious than anything, sometimes – and if someone said “Oh, we were just blowing off steam and kidding”, I’d understand it a lot better.
I’ve seen this kind of RW Victimization Card play crossed with pious moaning about the “badness of liberals” for at least 20 years. It’s a money maker. It can be done in their sleep. I always see it as the safest bet in the world for a deadline. RWers like this adore it – the others one..not so much.
Still waiting to hear how Warren Buffett can vote for a Marxist, abnd a guy who is “raping America” — and be a long-time Democrat. Hmmmmm.
- Still waiting to hear how Warren Buffett can vote for a Marxist…
Here’s a novel thought: if you’re really all that curious, why not ask him?
Buffett is so wealthy that he’s untouchable under ANY circumstances. Like all the millionaire limousine liberals in Hollywood, he can afford to work off some of his own guilt by lending his celebrity to the support of policies which force others to be “altruistic”. He may even think THAT’s being “altruistic”.
Still waiting, Goy. If Obama is anywhere as radical and terrible as he’s protrayed at Protein Wisdom and here, why would
goy
- Still waiting to hear how Warren Buffett can vote for a Marxist… He’s made his statements before. He was a big fan of Hillary Clinton, also..and God knows..sh’e slways been treated with great respect and empathy by conservatives.
Errrrrrr, yeah, that’s the ticket.
Buffett is so wealthy that he’s untouchable under ANY circumstances. Like all the millionaire limousine liberals in Hollywood, he can afford to work off some of his own guilt by lending his celebrity to the support of policies which force others to be “altruistic”. He may even think THAT’s being “altruistic”.
This is so damn funny, you remind me why this thread seems like something made up by the Onion.
The man with the greatest nickname outside of baseball — the “Sage of Omaha”, the inspiring self-made man, the greatest success story in at the least – present day capitalists, the man who still lives in his house bought around 1958 in a historic neighborhood..is talked about as if he’s trash. But we’re supposed to getting out the hankies over Jeff Goldstein.
I just realized what this whole victim act reminded me of. Bill Bellichick and the relentlessly childish Pat fans when Bellichick was “busted” for misbehavior. Instead of admitting he’d done somethng embarrassing, Bellichick and his team and fans went on like he had been abused.
And this is even more overwrought than that. I wish more than anything, someone here would take this to prime time television. I’d love to see how even a conservative like Bill O’Reilly would react. I’d love even more to see how one of the Tennessee Republican senators would react.
I’m 100% for that, as a liberal who likes those conservatives quite a lot on most days. Anyone else?
@MissNicky- Still waiting, …
Still waiting for what? God, you’re like a little two-year-old.
AGAIN – if you’re genuinely interested in Buffett’s reasoning, ask him. That’s the only way you’re going to get the answer you’re looking for. Do you expect me to read his mind? Apparently. Okay, let’s go with that then – if you need a possible explanation FROM ME that makes perfect sense, I’ve already provided one.
There, against all better judgment, I’ve entertained your insipid little Appeal to Authority fallacy: Buffett doesn’t speak for anyone but himself. If you’re serious about wanting to know his motivations for what he does, ask him. You won’t because, as you’ve demonstrated, you’re not a serious person.
Meanwhile, Buffett’s political opinions have no bearing on the world outside of his financial empire and/or whatever deals have been arranged between him and BHO. And, like O’Reilly, he certainly doesn’t speak for conservatives, generally.
- This is so damn funny, …
To you, maybe. Because all you’ve got is ridicule. But ridiculing it by labeling it “funny” doesn’t really address it, let alone refute it.
Thanks for confirming my observation that leftist ideologues are largely incapable of transcending their adolescent morality.
Nice try at the straw man set up over the world “all”. Not biting. But since you have acknowledged, “I know a lot of people who feel the way I do. And they aren’t fleeing Obama’s overall”, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You are sane enough to admit they are indeed fleeing…. just not “overall”. There is hope for you yet. The truly deluded just look for signs in the contrails. Like factseeker; Scott Brown #41 just proves that people LOVE Obama even more. Or like Derf; they voted for Scott because… well whatever Derf’s trying to say.
The bottom line is that Obama is just another Chicago politician who prints money and steals tax dollars to enrich his cronies. You and your friends still want to “believe” but reality is a bitch. “I love ya baby, I’ll buy you the moon” sounds so much better than, “can ya dip into your retirement and spot me another $100 for a round of drinks for my friends”, does it not? The sooner you deal with the fact that he doesn’t give a crap about you or health care, the sooner you will look wise.
As for you being someone who fights bigotry and injustice wherever you see it, good for you. No really. Good for you. Like I said, I think Helen is simply focusing on those who fit the bill. I don’t think she was referring to those who don’t.
- Nice try at the straw man set up over the world “all”.
Amazing isn’t it?
If it weren’t for the straw man fallacy, most self-described “liberals” (read: leftists) couldn’t respond to at least half of what’s posted on the Internet.
Interesting, Becky..
Nice try at the straw man set up over the world “all”.
Words should mean something. The strawman is only you and yours making a fuss because you used a word that wsn’t even close to accurate.
. But since you have acknowledged, “I know a lot of people who feel the way I do. And they aren’t fleeing Obama’s overall”, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You are sane enough to admit they are indeed fleeing…. just not “overall”.
I could have said this more clearly but you guessed wrongly. I meant some people have objections on different issues, for a variety of reasons. Some thinkj he compromised too much. Some object to the compromise with Stupak. It’s not all that different from voters and any president. Many conservatives came to object to Bush’s free-spending ways. Did they “flee” from him? I guess that’s a matter of opinion.
Or like Derf; they voted for Scott because… well whatever Derf’s trying to say.
I don’t know what Derf said exactly but it seems like you’re making it more simplistic than it may be. You want to see it just as a anti-Obama vote? I think a little time looking at the campaign doesn’t give that much support. I’d go into it but it seems like it causes another fuss if one doesn’t jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon. Coakley ran a negative, stupid campaign. Scott Brown, overall, ran a positive campaign. If I lived there I might have voted for Brown or stayed at home, not becauase of Obama, but because she was awful.
And I know when I vote locally, I base it on local issues and the candidates.
I think polls show that happened in MA.
The rest – you dislike Obama. Good for you. People may object to him on some issues but object to more with Republicans and the likes of Goldstein. Good for us
See how easy that is?
As for you being someone who fights bigotry and injustice wherever you see it, good for you. No really. Good for you. Like I said, I think Helen is simply focusing on those who fit the bill. I don’t think she was referring to those who don’t.
Well, at least we’re at a nice ending, I guess. This shouldn’t be news to conservatives here. There are liberals who bug the hell out of other liberals. I think there’s many, many more like me and others here who object to extreme hyperbole on either side. And..there are conservativs who disagree with other conservatives. It’s nonsense to pretend only liberals wouldn’t have an issue with Goldstein’s blog. The cartoonist took shots at them, from the start, before they even said anything. Was that respectful? Hmmm…
“Conservatives” like that don’t just smear all liberals. They smear anyone who dares to disagree with them. Odd, ain’t it? Which comes around to some of us wondering why that is acceptable.
I was curious to find out if Becky could think outside the “Americans Sent A Message To Obama Through Scott Brown” box. I was assuming that rational rebuttals to my arguments would demonstrate a certain amount of “empathy” (as in, an ability to perceive other points of view). Apparently she could not.
For all of their rhetoric, the left has had post-modernism/subjectivity as its cornerstone (Note: they call themselves the party of reason and logic, while post-modernism flatly rejects those concepts). Aside from challenging their “reality”, arguing with an anti-reason type is like arguing with your dog – it’s a futile gesture.
Having their false and inflated self-image and worldview challenged and refuted is traumatic, as it is for anyone to be questioned and even worse to be proven wrong.
I love a good challenge, and this post immediately called my attention. As someone who’s dedicating my life, in part, to increasing empathy all around in the culture, I found some of Helen’s comments painful, because they matched my own experience with liberals.
The Missing Empathy for the Right
In the social circles in which I find myself, and in much of the Left media, conservatives are regularly referred to as stupid (at best), backward, uncaring, or unevolved. At every opportunity I have, especially in my workshops, I invite people to look at what might be the underlying values behind conservative positions, to imagine how a decent fellow human could arrive at such opposing views. I wish I could contradict Helen Smith, but my experience only confirms what she says.
I see a complete dearth of genuine, open-hearted empathy towards conservatives. I regularly hear jokes at the expense of conservatives in my workshops, and I cringe. I am not conservative myself. Far from it! I find most liberals to be more conservative than me. I cringe because if I were a conservative, I would not experience Nonviolent Communication communities hospitable. I worked for several years with volunteers who are part of the campaign to create a department of peace in the US. They have not been able to cross the Democrat-Republican divide. As I see it, the obstacle was not the Republicans, but rather the challenge these activists had in being able to hear their opponents, listen with respect and care, imagine their values and deeper longings and aspirations, and be open to be affected by what they hear. What is dialogue, after all, if we are expecting others to change their views, positions, or strategies, without a comparable willingness on our part to be affected and changed by what we hear?
Here are more comments about my work to try to increase empathy towards conservatives.
To support fellow liberals in being able to reach a true empathic openness, I have often in the past conducted role plays in which I assumed the role of a much maligned figure, often George W. Bush, and asked people to enter dialogue with me by offering me empathy and understanding. Independently of people’s success in the activity (spotty), entering these roles has transformed me, because I now have a felt sense of what it might be like to be someone so different from myself. I was most moved when I imagined being the former president just about the time of September 11, 2001. I felt the weight of the responsibility, of having to make a decision about how to respond to the situation. I felt how awful it was to be hated by half my country.
Another time I engaged in a similar role play in which I was a soldier returning from Iraq only to face the judgments of others. As this soldier I was able to feel the outrage, the experience of not being understood at all for my profound willingness to sacrifice everything in order to protect the way of life of this country that’s so dear to me. I was able to feel what it was like to be together with others, risking my life, knowing I would do anything to protect theirs.
I feel less separate as a result. My own positions and views have not changed. But I now have a complete appreciation of the shared humanity of people who are far away from me on the political spectrum. I know that we have different worldviews, and I can hold that knowledge without losing understanding for the other worldview, even when I am frightened by the consequences I associate with it. I know that the fear is mutual. Conservatives are just as worried about my views, and what would happen if everyone espoused them, as I am about theirs. Knowing this helps me increase my compassion and understanding.
Opening Dialogue
Thursday night, on my TV show (posted on http://www.youtube.com/baynvc), I worked with the cast on a couple of “hot topics” of major differences. The first one was about the health care bill that just passed. I wish I had a true conservative in the studio. Instead, one member of the cast took on the role of a woman who thought of the bill as “Un-American” and undermining freedom. The other cast member took on the role of a Brit (which she is) who is strongly advocating for health care as a universal right. Together we worked on how to reach mutual understanding instead of arguing and trying to convince each other. Both were surprised, in the end, to recognize that they had shared values despite opposing views.
If Helen Smith, or anyone else who is Conservative and sees this post, is up for dialogue, I would be honored and touched. I mourn the fact that, as she says, I live in a bubble, with little that would bring me in contact with Conservatives. I mourn the fact that in order to teach empathy for Conservatives I must conjure up role plays instead of live dialogues. I hope she takes me up, because I want what I have learned about empathy to support healing the rift between the Right and the Left in this country. Yes, there are core differences as Haidt points out in his careful research. Yes, it may be that Conservatives are more able to empathize with Liberals than the other way around. I still maintain that we can connect across our differences. We may not immediately find ways to come closer on specific issues, but we can see our shared humanity, appreciate the struggles we face in understanding each other, and emerge with more humility and goodwill.
hi miki
Nice to see you engaging in the discussion here.
Some of the readers might be interested in your interview on the nature of empathy which is located here.
Miki Kashtan Insights into Empathy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalUb-75hMQ
The left is jihadist – on behalf of secular progressivism. Has been since Rousseau begat Hegel begat Marx. It is a skill and a virtue to misunderstand the enemy, for the people can make no errors, and any enemy is an enemy of the people.
With such doctrine, I’m not sure how you get started with a psychoanalytic story, unless it’s Hegal and Marx you want to psychoanalyze, or why any modern would want to adhere to such.
@Josh – The left is jihadist – on behalf of secular progressivism.
I think there’s a lot more truth in that statement than you might realize, Josh.
As for the psychoanalysis, it’s pretty straightforward if you reverse the way we normally think about these things. Too many people look at leftist ideologies as though they are based on some rational philosophy that can be measure logically against representative, small-R republicanism (i.e., self-government) and capitalism. They can’t. I believe the evidence is in history (e.g., American exceptionalism) and the reason is found in human psychology.
When we look at the social dichotomy – the two political “tribes” we think of as “liberals” and “conservatives” – we tend to think that the people in those groups have chosen an ideology based on how it will affect the human condition. The assumption is that humans make this assessment rationally. My observation, largely based on the same resource Dr. Helen uses here – Jon Haidt’s research – is that the process is actually quite different.
In fact, it looks like human beings select the ideology they prefer based on their own personal moral framework, not on a rational analysis of the ideology itself. In Haidt’s Happiness Hypothesis, he discusses brain function research which demonstrates how humans make moral decisions – value judgments – at an almost subconscious level. If necessary, we consciously rationalize those decisions later, sometimes with rather comical results, as our intellect bangs its head into the low-hanging steam pipe of reality (e.g., trying to rationalize why incest, for instance, is “wrong” if no one else will ever find out and there’s absolutely no chance of a pregnancy).
What this means is that ideology – i.e., “what is moral in society?” – is chosen at an almost “Lizard Mind” level, which relies solely on whatever a given individual possesses in terms of a moral framework, which Haidt calls one’s “moral mind”. That framework can be characterized through psychoanalysis, and Haidt’s research has begun this analysis process using extensive surveys which, among other things, correlate morality and ideological preference. The correlation is not only remarkably strong, but it’s also consistent across multiple cultures, which means this is a question of human nature, NOT cultural preferences.
Human nature is the realm of psychology – an area where people like Marx, et al., were woefully lacking, at least if the success rate of the ideology they developed is any indication. Of course, that’s based on the assumption that they cooked up socialism in a good faith attempt to improve the human condition. That’s an assumption I’m not ready to buy into.
If our children were allowed to mature chronologically, sexually and intellectually into adults without any requirement to mature morally, they would be indistinguishable from that portion of the left Dr. Helen discusses above: disrespectful, impudent, profane, rationalizing, tantrum-prone adolescents whose unbridled, narcissistic view of the world makes them inclined to choose a leftist ideology. Why? It’s pretty much a case of straight, psychological transference.
Socialism promises a Utopia where omnipotent government can be used to mold society into the world they don’t want to leave: one of cradle-to-grave dependency on a therapeutic, parental State. Not only are their dependency need thus met, but their needs for “fairness” and “caring” are thus also met, without the burden imposed by the other intuitive ethics (e.g., respect for legitimate authority) that make up a comprehensive moral framework.
Unfortunately this selective, naive, morally adolescent desire to be “cared for”, and to see forced egalitarianism through State-mandated “equality of outcomes“, have been historically exploited by the worst monsters in human history – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc. – to produce the most vile periods of our recent past. With each passing month – and each new outrage committed by this government – it takes a special kind of willful blindness not to recognize this same dynamic at work in the USA today.
I think there’s a lot more truth in that statement than you might realize, Josh.
Oh, good.
(looks around vaguely)
But let us take it seriously, then. This is a question, and I fear there is no god answer, what *do* we make of the jihadis, who Do Not Question the Will of Allah, or the Will of the People, or the March of Progress, as the case may be?
What do we “make” of them? We look at such people for what they are: socially suicidal zealots whose moral adolescence makes it impossible to engage in any level of self-examination (see also: narcissist).
What do we do?
Well, for one, we stop compromising with them.
Second, stop reacting to their rhetoric and start holding them accountable for their actions – like using bribery, fraud and procedural misfeasance in order to pass unconstitutional legislation against the will of the majority of Americans.
Third, begin to reduce their numbers by restoring classical education and rolling back entitlement programs.
That’d be a start.
meant: no good answer.
sheesh, didn’t we used to have an edit widget around here?
I think gaymarriedabortedfetus actually makes a good point–or at least sheds some light on the subject. Politicized liberals, progressives, leftists etc do not respect conservatives. They sometimes give obligatory lip service to respecting libertarian ideas but not so much anymore.
Understand this:This will never respect you and will only treat you humanely if they are forced to. For them, conservatives are an atavistic disease to be eradicated.
I want you to think really hard about what would have happened to this country if the tea party movement had fizzled. If people had simply felt to overwhelmed and had stayed at home. I really don’t feel like it’s an exageration to say that the “change” would have come really fast, and really furious.
Their messiah is the progeny of Frank Marshal Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi. They KNOW this. Their bookshelves are filled with authors with names like Zinn, Chomsky, Zizek, and Badiou.
What would these people do with you if given absolute latitude? And you want them to respect you in conversation? You want the debate to be civilized…a free flowing exchange of ideas between equals?
As a final note, I advise this: Grow a backbone. When someone points fighting words at you, give them the fight they are begging for.
Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said “I feel lied to, cheated and raped.”
Sounds racist to me.
Guess CNN is getting tired of carrying water for Captain Utopia.
Building a Culture of Empathy – a common value for progressives, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc.
From what I hear in this article, Helen is saying she values empathy. She would like progressives and liberals to empathize with conservatives. From the progressives I talk with, they say they also value empathy. So it sounds like we all have the same goal and value here of building culture of empathy, – i.e. where we all listen and try to empathize with each other? It sounds like we have a common starting point?
So how do we go about building this culture of empathy? I’m more in the progressive side, but a couple of weeks ago I went to the California Republican convention in San Jose, CA. I actually went there to interview Republicans about empathy. (video will be online shortly). I was graciously received and had very good conversations with many of the attendees. I was given a press pass by the man in charge of communications and he kindly gave me a tour of the conference and introduced me to several of the young college republicans. He encouraged them to do interviews with me. Several attendees said they appreciated what I was doing by coming to talk with them and trying to bridge this divide. I hope to do more interviews with progressives, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, on this theme of empathy.
BTW, my family is republican (very caring people I might add) and we’ve had some conversations about the different aspects of empathy as well. It seems to me that empathy is the glue which holds our society together.
For more on empathy, I’d recommend this interview I did with Joseph McCormick. He’s a founder of the Transpartison Alliance and he came from a very conservative point. He ran for congress and Newt Gingrich campaigned for him.
http://progressivespirit.com/Empathy/Projects/Interviews/2009-11-12-ETO.htm
Joseph McCormick on Empathy (1 of 4)
Joseph McCormick on Empathy Shadow Side (2 of 4)
Joseph McCormick Empathy Metaphor Wolves & Dolphins (3 of 4)
Joseph McCormick on Progressives & Empathy (4 of 4)
Edwin Rutsch
http://CultureOfEmpathy.com
This article and its comments may be the most ironic pieces I’ve ever read. In one sentence you are stating that liberals are incapable of feeling empathy for conservatives. In the next, we are finding every way possible to belittle liberals, by comparing them to psychopaths, sociopaths, claiming that they are poorly educated, incapable of accepting facts over their beliefs, and using straw man tactics such as calling them socialists and comparing them to Hitler or Stalin. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that conservatives posses this empathy that liberals lack.
I think this article exposes a very disturbing trend in our country, and it is not by any means unique to liberals. There is a growing tendency to view our own beliefs as absolutely true, and to feel that anyone who sees otherwise is subhuman. Furthermore, we can notice this trend when it occurs in those with opposing political beliefs, but we are completely ignorant when it occurs in ourselves.
- There is a growing tendency to view our own beliefs as absolutely true, and to feel that anyone who sees otherwise is subhuman.
If you take some time to educate yourself using the reference Dr. Helen cited (Haidt’s book, and his references), you’ll learn that this isn’t a “growing tendency” – it’s been hard-wired into human nature at a Darwinian level for millenia. If there’s any genuine intellectual curiosity hiding beneath all that faux indignation, you can start with this ‘cliff’s notes’ video.
Meanwhile, your own straw man arguments invite ridicule. There’s nothing in Helen’s article asserting that “liberals” (read: leftists) are unimportant, so your “belittling” fantasy is unfounded, and the “irony” you claim to see on that basis is really just a fallacy.
Here – this may help: as an adult, I can empathize with an ignorant, immature child. So far, so good? Also, I’m sure you can see that citing the perfectly natural reasons for that ignorance and immaturity is not “belittling” her – it’s not even politically incorrect. I’m simply stating the conditions of her existence. Still, I was once a child and, therefore, can empathize with one.
Conversely, a child is not capable of empathizing with an adult – the intellectual, moral and emotional development needed to do so simply haven’t been attained yet. That’s why adults don’t allow their children to manage the family finances or run the household. They don’t even compromise with their children on these issues – at least not if they’re sufficiently mature themselves.
Self-described “liberals” essentially fall into the role of the child in the above scenario.
If that stings, realize that the pain is most likely coming from a lack of maturity and a disinterest in understanding the analogy, NOT Haidt’s opinion that self-described “liberals” are unimportant (he’s a self-described atheist, “liberal” academic himself). Rather, the extensive research he and his colleagues have done shows that the moral framework which animates the self-described “liberal” is a subset of that of the self-described “conservative”.
Thus, in Haidt’s view, self-described “liberals” don’t possess the moral framework necessary to empathize with self-described “conservatives”. It’s not that they’re unwilling or too “stupid” to empathize, it’s that they are incapable of doing so. Conversely, because they possess a moral framework which subsumes that of the “liberal”, a self-described “conservative” can easily empathize with “liberals” and understand their motivations. But here’s the key: empathy is not, nor does it require agreement.
So, just as one example, I can empathize with and understand why self-described “liberals” espouse socially suicidal ideology, I even feel sorrow (i.e., compassion) for them in this regard, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, or stand idly by and watch them destroy the Republic in which I live… simply to preserve their self-esteem. That’s my personal definition of Dr. Helen’s sentiment when she writes “[c]onservatives shouldn’t back down on any of this, ever.”.
As for the socialist thing: Hitler was a national socialist (fascist); Stalin was an international socialist (communist). Contemporary, self-described “liberals” exhibit characteristics of both: support for collectivism, nationalization of industry, wealth redistribution and empowerment of the State to (ostensibly) guarantee equality of outcomes. If you don’t understand how “liberals” are socialist, then you’re most likely ignorant of socialism and its history, and immature enough not to recognize it. Noting this likelihood isn’t “belittling” you: ignorance and immaturity don’t imply that you’re unimportant; they imply that you’re a leftist.
I think you’ve made my point very well.
The original article specifically spoke of conservatives who “try to make sense of someone on the left who treats them with disdain and disgust”, and asks “Why are liberals unable to sympathize with conservatives?”. I counter back by saying that I simply do not see the same sympathy and respect from the conservative side, so this article seems to me like (as my mother used to say) the pot calling the kettle black. You then counter back with comments that reflect disdain, disgust and lack of sympathy with liberalism.
Now, I have not read Jonathan Haidt’s work, and I am curious about this notion of liberal vs conservatives moral framework. However this article only mentions Haidt’s work in passing. It uses one anecdotal example of a disrespectful liberal as its evidence that all liberals are unsympathetic towards different viewpoints. It of course then makes the assumption that conservatives do not lack such sympathy. It then makes an analogy to compare liberals to psychopaths (more on that later). And then the proposed solutions to these problems are to ignore liberals, to expose liberals to ridicule and consequences for their thought crime, and to make sure that liberals are educated properly (Rand is pretty standard reading in high school – at least that was so when I attended. As far as Friedman and Hayek, that isn’t standard, but neither is Keynes for that matter outside of an economics course). This is at the very least condescending, and to me it seems to indicate a certain amount of disdain towards liberals. And then there are the comments – I won’t bother to quote them but I see very little sympathy there.
It is also clever to use analogies that are obviously intended to be condescending, and then to claim that they are simply to illustrate the situation. But lets face it “the intellectual, moral and emotional development needed to do so simply haven’t been attained yet” clearly is meant to imply that liberals are intellectually, morally or emotionally inferior. Now you are going to come back and say that I don’t understand the analogy, but you didn’t bother to explain it. I understand the concept of moral frameworks, but I don’t know what you mean by a liberal framework being a subset of a conservative framework. I will take the time to read up on the sources, but you could have spent a paragraph explaining the source instead of using an analogy that was meaningless because it’s only purpose was to be condescending.
A part of my point comes from the fact that I lean to the left, but I work with some very right leaning conservatives. I respect them – they are very intelligent hard working people, and even though I strongly disagree with their opinions, my experience makes it impossible for me to believe that their opinions arise from ignorance or malice. I also have started to understand why they see the world the way that they do. I understand why someone would be concerned about increasing the size and power of the federal government, why someone would value the market and want to avoid government interference in the market, and why someone would have scrutiny towards entitlement programs and higher taxes. However I also understand why someone would be concerned about the increasing size and power of corporations, and why the government would be seen as a useful check on that power. I understand why someone would value small businesses and competition, but fear large corporations which strangle smaller businesses and hinder competition. I also understand that there are many people that fall through the cracks of our market based system, and that it is morally irresponsible to do nothing to try to help those who wish to advance themselves but do not have the means to do so. These viewpoints are not incompatible – in fact they each have benefits and act as meaningful checks upon one another.
On the other hand, I have no tolerance for people who are convinced that they are absolutely right and that others are absolutely wrong. In my much more liberal past I encountered some truly radical people who would gladly tell you that conservatives are everything from stupid to blatant fascists. I no longer associate with them for a reason. However I can see very little difference between their statements and yours (such as “ignorance and immaturity imply that you’re a leftist.”). If we are ever to get past this insane hyper-partisanship which infects every aspect of our lives, then we need to be able to have our own opinions while still having respect for the fact that others may have different views, and their viewpoints are not inferior to ours simply because they are different. I have plenty of examples from my own life that indicate that many liberals (myself included at times) fail miserably in this regard. However this article, the comments and your response indicate that conservatives seem incapable of this as well.
And regarding liberals and socialism, this may be true of the far left, but given some of the right wing racist organizations and militias out there I don’t think you want to be identified with the far right any more than I want to be identified with the far left. However mainstream Democratic ideas are simply not socialist. Socialism is state ownership of all means of production, typically to attempt to have equality of outcome. I (they) certainly do not want the state to own all means of production, and I (they) do not think that we should all have equal outcomes. Programs like medicare, medicaid, social security and health care reform are intended to address specific situations (the elderly and the poor) which are not handled by the market. The worst case of “nationalization” was the TARP bailout (brought into place during a conservative presidency). It was done specifically for an emergency situation, and most of the money has been paid back, and the government has divested its holdings in the companies which have paid back the money. There is a fundamental difference between having a public commons along side a strong free market economy and having state ownership of all means of production. The former is a mixed market economy – the latter is socialism. It is noteworthy that we fought a cold war against communism (and won) even while we had a variety of programs which you would now label socialism. If you are going to declare this socialism, then our military, our veterans programs, our schools, our roads, our libraries our police our fire department and so on are all socialist as well.
- … I simply do not see the same sympathy and respect from the conservative side…
Citing no examples, of course. The reality is that American history since FDR is a veritable litany of unwarranted respect and sympathy for leftist attitudes and policies.
…, so this article seems to me like (as my mother used to say) the pot calling the kettle black.
Well, I hate to be the first one to explain this to you, but the fact that is “seems” that way to you doesn’t actually make it so. Sorry.
- You then counter back with comments that reflect disdain, disgust …
And you think disdain and disgust are somehow indicative of a lack of empathy? If so, based on what? The definition of empathy mentions nothing about either. To cite one extreme example, just to illustrate, I can empathize with John Wilkes Booth; I still find what he did disdainful and disgusting.
… I have not read Jonathan Haidt’s work, and I am curious about this notion of liberal vs conservatives moral framework. However this article only mentions Haidt’s work in passing.
No, Haidt’s his work is referenced more than just “in passing” – it’s the scientific basis for the article’s central question. You should probably educate yourself by following some of the links Helen provided.
- It uses one anecdotal example of a disrespectful liberal as its evidence that all liberals are unsympathetic towards different viewpoints.
You’re clearly confused. You should probably read the article once more for comprehension, then go read at least some of Haidt’s work on this. The evidence that supports liberals’ inability to empathize with conservatives is Haidt’s research, not Kiteley’s unfortunate (but typical) behavior. The incident discussed is just one example of the fascinating dichotomy Haidt discovered.
- It of course then makes the assumption that conservatives do not lack such sympathy.
Empathy, actually. And, of course, they don’t lack such empathy. But again, you’d have to educate yourself by studying up – even just a little – on the scientific basis for this.
- It then makes an analogy to compare liberals to psychopaths (more on that later).
No, it doesn’t. The behavior of liberals is compared to the behavior of psychopaths with respect to one specific element: their inability to empathize with anothers’ morality. There was no “analogy” involved in that.
Personally, I think the psychopath reference is a poor choice because, while perfectly accurate, it carries with it the implication that liberals’ can’t develop an inability to empathize with those who possess a more comprehensive morality. That implication is countered by the many cases of liberals who’ve “woken up” and abandoned collectivist ideology (see this post).
- This is at the very least condescending, and to me it seems to indicate a certain amount of disdain towards liberals.
Exactly. But again, disdain is not incompatible with empathy.
… “the intellectual, moral and emotional development needed to do so simply haven’t been attained yet” clearly is meant to imply that liberals are intellectually, morally or emotionally inferior.
No, that’s just your assumption. And it’s absolutely invalid. Part of what makes this dichotomy so problematic is that most liberals are quite emotionally and intellectually well-developed. Especially the latter. Unfortunately, what this does is provide lots of ability to rationalize a selective morality.
- A part of my point comes from the fact that I lean to the left, but I work with some very right leaning conservatives. …
This paragraph indicates that you’re quite likely, eventually, going to come to the same conclusion many of us have – that leftist, collectivist ideology can’t be used to support a sustainable society. Eventually you will come to understand that truly abusive corporations are a violation of the free market, and that any thinking conservative sees them as such. That doesn’t mean all corporations are “bad” any more than it means government regulation can’t be just as abusive, if not moreso. Also, you may not be aware of the fact that before government usurped the roles of volunteerism, charity, mutuality and community support by creating a needlessly wasteful, enormous and complex welfare state, it was mostly comprehensive (nominally “conservative”) morality that worked to help the truly needy in society. A comprehensive moral framework doesn’t lead one to believe helping others is “wrong”. Quite the contrary. Also, it is not government’s place to enforce equality of outcomes, as leftist ideology demands.
- … I can see very little difference between their statements and yours (such as “ignorance and immaturity imply that you’re a leftist.”).
If you’re truly as ignorant of socialism as your post implied, well then I’m sorry if the truth hurts. Ignorance can be fixed. All you have to do is fix it.
- If we are ever to get past this insane hyper-partisanship which infects every aspect of our lives, then we need to be able to have our own opinions while still having respect for the fact that others may have different views, and their viewpoints are not inferior to ours simply because they are different.
Chad, this is were you either have some more to learn or you’re deluding yourself. Liberals’ (read: leftists’) views aren’t inferior just because they’re “different”, they’re inferior because they’re based on discredited ideologies that simply don’t stand up to practical reality and real, Darwinian human nature.
- Socialism is state ownership of all means of production, typically to attempt to have equality of outcome.
Ownership means control. And this is exactly what the Democrat Congress and the current administration are pursuing in every major economic sector. Or are you saying that it doesn’t “seem” that way to you? If not, then I’m not going to waste time trying to convince you – you seem smart enough to figure it out eventually. Here’s a hint: all of the various “specific situations” you refer to combine to create a whole. You can comfort yourself with notions of “it’s not socialism… yet” all you like. Eventually you wake up one day and that’s no longer true. That day gets closer with each bill Congress passes.
Hmmm… that bit above that reads “…can’t develop an inability to empathize…”, should of course read “…can’t develop an ability to empathize…”.
One additional point, on the following:
- If you are going to declare this socialism, then our military, our veterans programs, our schools, our roads, our libraries our police our fire department and so on are all socialist as well.
No, this is a common fallacy. The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to fund a military, which provides for the common defence and general Welfare (i.e., nominal freedom from worry of invasion, enjoyed by every citizen, equally). Also, the military doesn’t produce anything that is consumed in our economy, so in that sense it’s not relevant to an assessment of whether or not our government has grown too socialist. Veterans programs are an integral part of maintaining the military.
On education, the decline in the quality of education in the U.S. has been directly proportional to the degree of extortion used by government to assert control over the education process – an area where it has no explicit constitutional authority.
Publicly funded libraries aren’t part of the active economy, per se. And besides, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Interstate roads are one of the few areas of public expenditure that can be justified using the commonly abused “general Welfare” phrase, since they provide a benefit to everyone, equally. Use of the roads themselves is not restricted by government so, in that sense, the government is not using them to control the means of production. Police and fire departments are not run by the federal government, they’re operated at the municipal level. Neither of these produce anything that is consumed in our economy either, so again the fact that they’re publicly funded has no relationship to the State controlling the means of production.
You’re a little confused on these aspects of society and thus your notion of a “public commons” implies that you really do believe two separate economies can exist in this country without one exploiting the other. We do in fact have a large and constantly growing welfare “economy” that produces absolutely nothing, but which consumes an enormous amount – all directly funded by the Taxpayer. That is, this “public commons” represented by the welfare state acts as a parasite, siphoning off the wealth that is generated by the free market. As this parasite grows, and the combination of entitlements, fraud, waste, corruption and public sector work force becomes too large – i.e., unsustainable by the free market economy it exploits – you will get to see a real-world demonstration of the flaws in leftist, collectivist ideology first-hand.
Building a Culture of Empathy – a common value for progressives, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc.
From what I hear in this article, Helen is saying she values empathy. She would like progressives and liberals to empathize with conservatives. From the progressives I talk with, they say they also value empathy. So it sounds like we all have the same goal and value here of building culture of empathy, – i.e. where we all listen and try to empathize with each other? It sounds like we have a common starting point?
So how do we go about building this culture of empathy? I’m more in the progressive side, but a couple of weeks ago I went to the California Republican convention in San Jose, CA. I actually went there to interview Republicans about empathy. (video will be online shortly). I was graciously received and had very good conversations with many of the attendees. I was given a press pass by the man in charge of communications and he kindly gave me a tour of the conference and introduced me to several of the young college republicans. He encouraged them to do interviews with me. Several attendees said they appreciated what I was doing by coming to talk with them and trying to bridge this divide. I hope to do more interviews with progressives, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, on this theme of empathy.
Liberals disrespect and lack of empathy extends to their own. Look at what is happening at the Motion Picture Home. There appears to be an intractable and prolonged moral conflict going on initiated by Liberals who hold the purse strings. The non-profit was founded to take care of the needy and now the neediest among them are being excluded from the community. Dehumanization? There, psychologically, it is necessary to categorize the disabled elderly as less than human in order to justify the violation of basic human rights. When the disabled elderly and their families are viewed as a group standing in the way of a corporate objective to close the place down, it becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or punitive actions taken against them. The theme of empathy is common ground for both liberals and conservatives but the common path forward stops short when it comes to money, power, and greed. Check out who and what are expendable, google closure Motion Picture & Television Fund and google Saving the Lives of Our Own.
- From what I hear in this article, Helen is saying she values empathy. She would like progressives and liberals to empathize with conservatives. From the progressives I talk with, they say they also value empathy. So it sounds like we all have the same goal and value here of building culture of empathy…
Wow. That’s some pretty slick logical sleight-of-hand there.
edwin, it looks like you’re hearing what your own moral framework allows you to hear. You should probably read Dr. Helen’s article again. This time try just “hearing” what’s there.
First off, I can’t find anything that specifically says Dr. Helen “values empathy”. Rather, it’s simply a given that empathy is a useful ability. The point of the article is that empathy is a skill that self-described “liberals” lack when it comes to “conservatives” – specifically (read the article) those “liberals” who feel it’s necessary to be disrespectful, disdainful, angry and rude when faced with the disconnect from reality inherent in their own leftist bias.
Second, there’s nothing in the article indicating that Helen would “like progressives and liberals to empathize with conservatives”. Rather, the article acknowledges that this is not possible, and cites research and several rational, testable (and obvious) reasons why this is so.
Speaking for myself – and, I’m sure, many other self-described “conservatives” – I absolutely do NOT share your goal to “build a culture of empathy”. I already empathize with your socialist and “progressive” (read: quasi-fascist) sentiments. I completely understand the self-described “liberal” motivation to pursue them – because I used to pursue them – and I reject them on that basis.
As Dr. Haidt’s research shows, not all empathy is “created equal”. The selective moral framework which animates the left results in a very selective empathy – one driven by nebulous notions of “social justice” which are based solely on class and race distinctions that derive from the “liberal” morality grounded exclusively in “caring” and “fairness” (again, see Haidt’s research).
Thus we see support for racialist components in the recently passed socialized medicine bill, as well as support for “affordable mortgages” (specifically, for racial minorities and the so-called “poor”) and “affordable health care” (ditto) – all of which are to be achieved through socialism, i.e., the redistribution of wealth by an omnipotent State, without considering any of the more viable alternatives.
Clearly, self-described “liberals” have little empathy for those who spend a life building a business, for those who invest their lives and their futures in an enterprise which provides employment and a good livelihood for others, for those who shoulder the responsibility of tens or hundreds of employees and their families, or for those who are simply trying to make the best possible life for themselves and their families in keeping with the sentiments most fundamental to this Republic: the pursuit of Happiness. For the self-described “liberal”, need not only trumps all of these, but (again) is left to be defined by an omnipotent State.
That said, it sounds like you’re not at all the sort of leftist Dr. Helen is referring to in her article, i.e., someone who reacts to an ideological challenge with disrespect and rudeness, like Kiteley did. I encourage you to continue engaging self-described “conservatives”, as you have. Everyone advances through Erikson’s stages of human development – matures at their own pace – based on their own unique circumstances.
Charlie… about that preview…
So if I hear you correctly Goy, you feel that liberals and progressives are incapable of empathizing with conservatives? is that much correct?
but I’m not clear on if you personally value empathy or not?
BTW, my family is conservative/republican (very caring people I might add) and we’ve had some illuminating conversations about the different aspects of empathy as well.
For more on empathy here’s an interview I did with Joseph McCormick. He’s a founder of the Transpartison Alliance and he came from a very conservative view point. He ran for congress and Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole campaigned for him. He has some interesting comments and stories about this.
http://progressivespirit.com/Empathy/Projects/Interviews/2009-11-12-ETO.htm
Joseph McCormick on Empathy (1 of 4)
@Edwin Rutsch – So if I hear you correctly Goy, you feel that liberals and progressives are incapable of empathizing with conservatives? is that much correct?
Thanks Edwin but, no. Again, I think you may be ‘hearing’ (actually, reading) what your confirmation bias filters are telling you to hear. I don’t “feel” anything on this particular issue.
What I do is read, analyze, read some more, draw conclusions, write about them, read the reactions, analyze some more… it’s a never ending process. I guess that’s a character flaw developed over 30+ years as a professional engineer who’s solved some of industry’s thorniest problems: like “good intentions”, “feelings” don’t factor much into solving real world problems involving complex systems and Darwinian human nature. In fact, they mostly just confuse the issue(s).
On this particular topic, I note that the only extensive research to date of which I’m aware – not all-encompassing of course – indicates a very clear and consistent correlation between selective morality and a preference for leftist ideology. That correlation is easily explained, and Haidt has provided an explanation with which I happen to agree, and have built upon. In fact, inasmuch as he’s a young Jewish atheist and self-described “liberal” academic and I’m a elderly gentile agnostic and a self-described “constitutional conservative” working stiff, we’re already a Transpartisan Alliance of two!
The implication derived from Haidt’s work is that a selective morality – based almost exclusively on the intuitive ethics of ‘fairness’ and ‘caring’ – makes one dangerously susceptible to the discredited collectivist ideologies invented by Marx and his ilk. So it’s not that leftists have a selective morality as much as those with a selective morality are more inclined to be drawn into the socially suicidal ideologies supported by leftist dogma.
Haidt – again, a “liberal” – has apparently realized this, and spends quite a bit of time and effort trying to convince his leftist colleagues to engage in true moral diversity, exhorting them to empathize with “conservatives”. They, of course, consistently resist doing so, as his own research would predict: it’s not in their nature, that is, those with a selective morality based almost exclusively on only two of the five basic intuitive ethics can not possibly empathize with someone whose moral framework is comprehensive, and which includes all five of those ethics. Again, it’s like expecting a five-year-old to empathize with a senior citizen. It’s not going to happen. The good news is that the five-year-old has the potential to mature into an adult who can so empathize. I believe the same is true of most self-described “liberals”.
- I’m not clear on if you personally value empathy or not?
I don’t consider empathy something to be “valued”, necessarily – any more than natural aging is to be “valued”. To “value” empathy, I think, requires that one confuse it with the ability to feel emotion or to feel someone else’s pain. But the fact is that all human beings are inherently capable of some level of empathy, as the “Golden Rule” would imply, and that level is in turn determined by their level of emotional, moral and intellectual development. This seems to be universally true unless one suffers from a psychological personality disorder (“PD”, e.g., psychopathy or sociopathy) that prevents one from exercising that capability.
This is, in fact, the only point on which I disagree with Dr. Helen: her use of psychopathy as an analogy for understanding the leftist’s empathic limitations. It’s completely understandable, given the milieu in which she works, in her capacity as a forensic psychologist, but while technically accurate, at least with respect to the observed behaviors involved, this analogy carries with it the unfortunate implication that it “can’t be fixed” (PD’s are not typically “curable”). The reality of self-described “liberals”, however, is that quite a large number have experienced epiphanies that caused them to leave their leftist dogma behind. Roger Simon, Bill Whittle, Ronald Reagan, neo-neocon, ex-democrat, Robin of Berkeley, myself… the list is pretty long, especially when one includes the many, many comments posted by people like “A ‘former’ liberal”.
- BTW, my family is conservative/republican (very caring people I might add) …
Yet you seem almost obliged to “add” it as a parenthetical. As though they’re an exception to the rule. I think a psychotherapist would find that interesting.
The reality is that self-labeled “conservatives” value the ethics of ‘fairness’ and ‘caring’ almost as highly as self-described “liberals”. As I’ve pointed out in my own article on this, the difference between liberals and conservatives in this particular regard isn’t all that great. Until growing government subsumed the natural function of community charity, conservative ethics were largely responsible for taking care of the truly needy in society, for instance.
What makes your “I might add” significant – to a conservative – is that conservatives’ inclinations toward ‘fairness’ and ‘caring’ are in fact quite strong; they’re simply tempered by additional intuitive ethics. For just one example from a practical standpoint, this has the effect of setting the bar pretty high when it comes to defining things like “need”, because once you’ve declared half a society’s population as “needy”, you have a serious problem.
As Haidt’s research indicates, that “full boat” of comprehensive ethics has been the foundation for sustainable societies throughout human history. Societies based almost exclusively on the selective morality of the leftist have a tendency to crash and burn – sometimes with attendant loss of life in the tens of millions – which is why I refer to the ideologies it selects for as “socially suicidal”. My personal preference is to push the Republic away from the drain-circling debt/death spiral toward which it’s presently racing, and back toward its sustainable roots, which are grounded in the morally comprehensive ideology of individualism, not the morally selective ideology of collectivism.
- For more on empathy here’s an interview I did with Joseph McCormick.
I’m already pretty comfortable with the concept of empathy, thanks. And I think you meant Transpartisan Alliance. You might want to correct that on your site.
To be perfectly frank, McCormick’s “Dr. Phil” impersonation strains credibility. He doesn’t seem to understand that empathy isn’t simply the ability to “feel deeply” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) or even to “feel” what others are feeling – even in the sense that his rather comical, New Age ‘clairsentience’ nonsense would imply.
Real empathy isn’t just the ability to see yourself in someone else’s position or to feel what they “feel”. Rather, it’s the ability to understand what motivates them to feel as they do. The difference is subtle, but critical, and it’s a difference that is completely missing from BHO’s endless river of empty rhetoric on this topic. As for McCormick, the story he relates indicates that he is (still) in very dire need of deep, long psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. He describes having been emotionally abandoned at a very early age and seems – at least based on this video – far from having recovered from that. Following the break he describes, he seems to have traded one form of compensation (rejecting all emotion) for another (drowning in emotion). Neither is healthy.
Finally, there’s already a vast “transpartisan” movement afoot. It’s called the TEA Party.
“Clearly, self-described “liberals” have little empathy for those who spend a life building a business, for those who invest their lives and their futures in an enterprise which provides employment and a good livelihood for others.”
As was suggested by the Avid comment, one look at the microcosm of Hollywood’s nursing home scandal proves the statement above to be true. Not only is there no empathy for those who invest their lives, but here there is no empathy for those who invested their lives in the movie business that made millionaires and in some cases billionaires out of the handful of very powerful Hollywood moguls, who continue to deny aid and comfort to the most elderly and infirm in their own community.
The group opposing the closure of the nursing home, “Saving the Lives of Our Own, has a website: http://www.savingthelivesofourown.org
Putting all liberals in one box is like saying “all conservatives are bigots”.
Agreed. The liberals in this side issue with the nursing home include the most powerful and wealthy, the ones who are Obama’s fundraisers, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. On the one hand they are touted as philanthropists, on the other hand they are all about authoritarian control and if the protesters are correct, money and power and greed. I’d say it’s interesting that Katzenberg controls healthcare for the movie industry. What would you, or would you, label these Hollywood liberals?
For all of their rhetoric, the left has had post-modernism/subjectivity as its cornerstone (Note: they call themselves the party of reason and logic, while post-modernism flatly rejects those concepts). Aside from challenging their “reality”, arguing with an anti-reason type is like arguing with your dog – it’s a futile gesture.
So, the conservative cornerstones of Christianity and objectivism and neoconism and constitutionalism all agree?
I used to feel sorry for them, now I feel sorry for me and my kids. I am single mother who has worked extra hours for years to support my children. I now get the pleasure of having to work another extra day, every two weeks or so to pay for my portion of the health care so that others can stay home. This is time away from my children, who barely have one parent. Now, I really hate them.
Damn that pesky Heritage Foundation. And Mitt Romney. And even Scott Brown: “In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care”. They should keep their ideas to themselves.
- They should keep their ideas to themselves.
Or, at least, not broadcast their incompetence quite so widely.
As everywhere else, the real problem in MA was not “uncompensated care”. The real problem is the skyrocketing cost of health care. Meanwhile, the Beta version of socialized medicine in MA simply caused insurance premiums to increase at rates higher than the rest of the nation and did nothing to bring the cost of health care down.
Are Americans simply screwed? Maybe do like Mexico?:
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876674340970c-800wi
- Are Americans simply screwed?
Screwed… you mean, because of an apples-to-dirty-socks comparison chart?
Don’t think so.
If Americans are screwed, it’s because they have allowed their government to completely corrupt the free market in health care.
I don’t know if the internet ate a couple of my posts or what. One was about the inspiring message and career of Warren Buffet. People are free to disagree with his political choices but he is called the Sage of Omaha for good reasons. I’d love to see a conservative try and make the case he is stupid or one who supports a Marxist.
Anyway..
That said, it sounds like you’re not at all the sort of leftist Dr. Helen is referring to in her article, i.e., someone who reacts to an ideological challenge with disrespect and rudeness, like Kiteley did.
It’s disingenuous at best to say an objection to the extreme
Even the cartoonist said some conservatives were likely to object to the drawing in question. Did she show respect for them? Well, no. She insulted them even before they reacted as suffering from “Stockholnm syndrome”. Goldstein gave a ONE-sided story. No one can deny that. The professor’s side never gets an ounce of respect or empathy from anyone here who insults him for daring to have a differing opinion.
We’ve discussed Ted Rall. If something objects to him, or wanted their name taken from his resume, I could understand. So where is the show of respect and empathy for people who feel the same way about the cartoon in question?
(I’ve tried this before ..what the heck, I’ll try again. It seems a bit odd that hatred toward liberals is commonplace and acceptable, A criticism of a RW blog is not.)
And Ash: — good one. I’ve tried getting at this thorny problem without any success. Good luck.
Putting all liberals in one box is like saying “all conservatives are bigots”.
Exactly. Or…it’s the same as saying all conservatives who have issues with Obama are racists. Disagreeing with a president or a blogger does not put anyone into a box.
Cross your fingers. Maybe the ray of light will come in one of these days, for both sides.
@MissNicky – I don’t know if the internet ate a couple of my posts or what.
Nope – they’re all there in their dysfunctional glory.
- … Warren Buffet …
Here’s a rerun: if you’re genuinely interested in Buffett’s reasoning, ask him about it. You won’t, of course, because all you’re really interested in is trying to get someone to jump through hoops second-guessing Buffett’s rationale, so that you can then pretend to know what his motivation is.
The problem is that you’re pursuing an Appeal to Authority fallacy here: Buffett’s success doesn’t provide any evidence one way or the other about BHO’s ideology. What matters are BHO’s actions – both in the past and while in office, which have been clearly socialist.
- Goldstein gave a ONE-sided story.
Oh, really? And – silly you – here you are reacting to Jeff’s account as if it were all perfectly true! Oh wait – now only parts of it are accurate? In what way are you anointed such that you’re capable – third-hand, as it were – of deciding that only certain parts are suspect?
- The professor’s side never gets an ounce of respect…
Really? Has he published an account that differs from Jeff’s? It’s a “free” Internet – nothing’s stopping him from doing so. If he hasn’t published a response to this, maybe you should do a public service and contact him.
Meanwhile, it’s tough to have respect for someone who makes his living as a writer, and as a teacher of writing, who doesn’t support certain free speech when it might reflect “badly” on him, personally. I have complete empathy for Kiteley, and I understand his motivation perfectly. It’s quite clear why he reacted rudely as he did: it was the only choice acceptable to him. He could either become abusive, and hope to bully Jeff into telling a lie, or he could simply admit to his own hypocrisy and cowardice, and hope to appeal to Jeff’s sympathy. He misjudged Jeff and chose the former. Now he’s a punch line.
Liberals, leftists and progressives out there: when are you planning to boycott CNN for the racist article they published, which included a characterization by a woman who claimed BHO made her “feel lied to, cheated and raped.”
Inquiring minds want to know: where’s the outrage?
“feel lied to, cheated and raped.”
I don’t see where in the article she backs up such a strong opinion. And they claim 4% were Democrats – sounds like typical blue dogs to me.
- I don’t see where in the article she backs up such a strong opinion.
You don’t? Well then that’s all the more reason to get off your @ss and set CNN straight for publishing unsupported attacks on the president. Better hop to it.
According to leftists like Lefty, CNN is “blatantly” spreading raaaaaaacist propaganda by printing an article that uses the word “rape” in the context of a black man.
Where’s the outrage? Is an actual cartoon required?
Or is this just another application of the leftist Double Standard in action?
Or maybe you’re just as big a hypocrite and coward as Kiteley?
You pick.
What’s fascinating about this post is its mirroring of well-documented psychological profiles — of the right wing personality. And that the two sides have polarized to such a degree to see the other in the same way. OR: that the right has usurped research done on itself, and is spitting it back — which is a common attribute of the profile noted below.
The right wing authoritarian personality has less to do with a political view than it does with a psychological personality structure.
Yale social psychologist Stanley Milgram defined obedience as the ” the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purposes”, and called it “the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority.” A decade before Milgram produced his findings, which dealt with the conflict arising between obedience to authority and moral conscience, a study on the “Authoritarian Personality” was undertaken at UC Berkeley as part of a an effort by leading social scientists to understand how, in a culture of law, order and reason…”a vast majority of people could and actually did tolerate the mass extermination of fellow citizens.” That question had some urgency after the horrors of World War II.
During the past half century, this understanding of authoritarianism has been greatly increased through the effforts of social psychologist Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. Altemeyer found authoritarianism to be consistantly associated with right wing rather then left wing ideology. It refers to people that overtly submit to the established authorities in their lives, who could be of any political stripe. They are the people that march in “lock-step” as opposed to those that march to “the beat of a different drummer”.
My Way or the Highway
According to John Dean, who wrote in Conservatives Without Conscience, “Many conservatives, particularly those who are clearly authoritarians, are not aware of their illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical thinking. If made cognizant of it, they either rationalize it away, neglect to care, or attack those who reveal their human weaknesses. Because such thinking seems to be a reality of contemporary conservatism, anyone operating from a logical mind or has the inclination toward a reasoned judgment will have a problem with this.” Dean adds that right-wing authoritarianism reveals itself in three ways:
1.Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
2.Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
3.Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
In North America these traits are seen more readily in those with conservative political leanings. To break this down even further, one can examine the following symptoms that reveal the authoritarian personality organized into four distinct catagories.
1: Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to:
•Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
•Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking, as illustrated by Orwellian doublethink.
•Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
•Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
•Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
•Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.
2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:
•Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights
•Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
•Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
•Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities.
•Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
•Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:
•Be dogmatic.
•Be zealots.
•Be hypocrites.
•Be absolutists
•Be bullies when they have power over others.
•Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
•Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:
•Believe they have no personal failings.
•Avoid learning about their personal failings.
•Be highly self-righteous.
•Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
These are the hallmarks of Right-wing Authoritarianism. Recognizing them and the degree to which a political party promotes them is a matter for the individual to determine. Seeing them as part of all of us, in varying degreees and across a spectrum, allows us to come to a place where we might dialogue on the issues at hand, sans anger.
The parable of the mote and the beam applies here. Also the old joke about rivers in Egypt.
This list describes authoritarianism quite well, then ascribes those qualities to the “right wing.” The qualities described, however, match rather nicely with a good bit of the current left wing.
COOL!!! PREVIEW!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!
Any chance we (meaning you) can re-set the Name, Mail and Website form fields so they auto-complete? Or was that part of what messed things up the other day?
Also, it’s REALLY nice to be able to depend on the Back button again. Thanks for that, too!
- …the right has usurped research done on itself…
Well, except for the minor detail that Jon Haidt is a self-described atheist and “liberal” (read: leftist) academic, and did his own research.
So much for your silly theory.
It amazes me how supposed “intellectuals” consistently confuse respect for legitimate authority (e.g., respect for the rule of law) and authoritarian (e.g., blind obedience) behavior. Oh wait – it’s not “confusion” at all. It’s an intentional, intellectually dishonest attempt to project leftist behaviors onto others.
Authoritarianism defined: a mandate demanding that all American citizens purchase a private sector product whether they want it, need it, can afford it or not; extortion of Social Security benefits when a retiree ops not to enroll in Medicare Part A.
Leftist ideology pushes society ever closer to omnipotent government and Totalitarianism – like the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Third Reich and Mussolini’s Fascism. These were the very embodiment of an authoritarian regime – all socialist.
Justin Raimondo claimed that leftist statists who eventually became neocons are actually authoritarians at the core. This could mean that inherent authoritarianism remains stable, but its political affiliation can shift with the times.
By the way – just a couple of additional points…
Next time you get the urge to copy, paste and plagiarize someone else’s work, try to resist.
And if you’re going to quote someone’s opinions on human behavior it’s probably better to find someone with at least a small shred of credibility. The guy who orchestrated the most infamous cover-up in U.S. History, and who then turned coats to save his own @ss, probably isn’t the best choice.
Also not the greatest choice is someone like Bob Altermeyer, who’s clearly confused (or, more likely, intentionally confusing his terms) regarding the commonly misunderstood political notions of left- and right-wing.
You can get Altermeyer’s book here. Even if you’re not interested in buying it, check out the link. Yes, that really is the “reference work” the above – plagiarized – post cites.
You can also download the book here. In it, you’ll find little gems like this [my emph.]:
So… no agenda there, eh?
Next, we have this [my emph.]:
So it’s clear that Altermeyer is using “right” in an intentionally disingenuous way, one that is directly in line with his politically leftist agenda (see above). Also, if we take even a cursory look at the way The Left Wing Media has attempted to demonize the TEA Party, we see ample evidence of willingness to attack others in the name of “authority”.
Altermeyer’s “RWA” simply identifies the same trends discovered by Haidt – that is, the intuitive ethic of authority is one of the five that comprise most conservatives’ comprehensive moral framework. At the same time, this ethic – respect for legitimate authority – is all but missing from the selective moral framework which animates most self-described “liberals”.
The critical difference is that Haidt was intellectually honest about his findings, even though they didn’t support his own political leanings. He didn’t resort to intentionally conflating respect for legitimate authority with authoritarian behavior (again, two completely different things), the way Altermeyer has.
Liberals, leftists and progressives out there: when …
You left out conservatives, Goy. “I expect this will also flush out the usual Stockholm-syndrome “conservatives” who wring their hands and say “oh you can’t say that! People will take offense!”
That was from the cartoonist.
Who can deny there’s only Goldstein’s side of the issue over the cartoon? You can’t even admit that fact. If you can show any respect and empathy for his POV, I’d love to have it pointed out.
Since you won’t talk honestly about people like Warren Buffet, and show him respect…OK.
What about this on the subject of racism and politics , that Obama and others can be harder hit because they are African-Americans…
“The honest answer is, ‘yes’. “Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do. It’s a different role for me to play and others to play and that’s just the reality of it. But you take that as part of the nature of it.”
Your reaction?
Any thoughts on how that person would react to the cartoon?
- You left out conservatives…
I did. Intentionally. Last I checked, even the ones suffering Stockholm Syndrome weren’t calling Darlene’s cartoon “racist”. But then, spending time tracking all those reactions down isn’t exactly my highest priority right now. I’m sure you’ll find at least one. If you do, just point them to my post above and tell them to get busy boycotting CNN.
Speaking of which, what’s YOUR plan for holding the “racist” CNN accountable for their actions, eh?
Or are you just as big a flaming hypocrite and coward as Kiteley?
Don’t bother. I already know the answer.
- Who can deny there’s only Goldstein’s side of the issue over the cartoon?
No one denied that. This is just more straw man B.S. Do you get paid for these?
You’re throwing a hissy fit about something Jeff wrote, based on a cartoon he didn’t create. In order to do that, you had to take Jeff at his word regarding the parts that p!ssed you off. Yet somehow the rest of what Jeff wrote is… what… a lie, according to you? Any idea how big a flaming hypocrite that makes you? Take a guess. It’s a big number.
- …you won’t talk honestly about people like Warren Buffet…
ANOTHER straw man. I guess you do get paid for them.
I was perfectly honest about Buffett. His opinion of BHO is no longer relevant now that BHO’s actions have demonstrated the openly socialist nature of the agenda he’s pushing.
The real problem here is that you won’t talk honestly about BHO’s actions. You keep trying to deflect to Buffett – who is NOT the president.
- Any thoughts on how that person would react to the cartoon?
So now I’m supposed to read someone’s mind and predict their behavior? Are you even READING what you’re typing here? Obviously, this new Preview function is doing you NO good whatsoever.
Pay Attention: I COULDN’T CARE LESS how any particular person would “react” to a political cartoon that accurately caricatures recent events using a theme that is perfectly descriptive of those events.
The one and only thought I have on such a person’s reaction is this: do they feel the need to be abusive, rude or sarcastic in response? If so, then odds are they’re a “liberal” (read: leftist).
As for Michael Steele – the first openly Socialist Lite® chairman of the RNC – he’s been playing the race card almost as heavily as BHO and his useful idiot minions. Ace said it best, and I completely agree:
“If you can show any respect and empathy for his POV, I’d love to have it pointed out. “..”His” as in Brian Kiteley, – even from the very one-sided report of the disagreement.
(And there’s a PREVIEW button! Awesome. It’s much appreciated. Obviously, I could use it.)
I would suggest Tit-for-Tat, or a corollary of the Golden Rule – treat the Leftists as they choose to treat others. Those who will not show respect and empathy for ordinary, normal people deserve neither from any of us. And when they regard ordinary, normal people as the enemy, the Leftists who do so deserve to be regarded as enemies, and treated accordingly. Disrespectful Leftists should be regarded as mentally deranged and diseased, and treated as such. Disrespectful Leftists should be exposed for the inhuman monsters that they behave like, and regarded as the enemy of all humanity. Such characters most certainly should never be entrusted with power over anybody else’s life, let alone with power over everybody’s lives.
Socialism? There’s a sizeable percentage of liberals (10-15%) who believe Obama is NOT liberal enough.
I say the degree of perceived socialism depends on the political relativity factor. But the truth remains constant regardless of the speed at which one is traveling away from it. (ba dump)
While I don’t always agree with Bill Whittle’s politics (or long windedness), he did an excellent piece about dealing with unethical a-holes (tit-for-tat game theory) but I forget what it was called. It’s been a few years.
- Socialism? There’s a sizeable percentage of liberals (10-15%) who believe Obama is NOT liberal enough.
So let me get this straight… the prevalence of Marxists among those who describe themselves as “liberals” somehow vindicates BHO’s ideology as “not socialist”? Or are we supposed to be comforted by the fact that BHO hasn’t really let loose to the degree those people want him too?
The notion of “perceived” socialism is nonsense. Socialism has a formal definition. The more closely a society fits that definition, the more socialist it is, objectively. Perception is not a factor, except when it comes to trying to hide it.
I got a kick out of your “Socialist Lite®”. Hilarious. Steele may be an incompetent buffoon, but a socialist?
You’ll need to give me concrete examples of this “Marxism” of which you speak. I won’t percieve the use of Keynesian methods to get a ‘worst economy since the Depression’ as fully socialist, until these things become permanent. Far more likely, when things are rolling again the voters will demand less taxes and hopefully less deficit.
- I got a kick out of your “Socialist Lite®”. Hilarious. Steele may be an incompetent buffoon, but a socialist?
The two tend to go hand in hand. If you look at the ideological make-up of our government today, it’s populated by a far-far-left faction in the Democrat party and a far-left / center-left Republican party. The only people with any influence at all who are pushing for accountable, smaller, Constitutionally-limited government are a few FNC pundits, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan and the TEA Party. So yeah, Steele’s as good as a socialist in this horse race.
The biggest problem with the Republican Party is that ever since Clinton, via The Left Wing Media, took credit for the brief boom in the economy after ’97 (which was driven primarily by the Republican Congress’ decision to reduce cap. gains taxes and then promptly squashed by the dot-com debacle and, then, 9/11) they have been trying to out-left the left by growing government using their own patented formula. Their strategy, however, was far more workable than the Democrats’ “scorched earth” policies: they cut taxes to boost the economy and, thus, drove record levels of tax revenue toward the State. That’s why the last three Republican budgets all had steadily shrinking deficits – even as government and entitlements grew by leaps and bounds. Had it not been for the change in Congress in 2006, spending and revenue trends would have resulted in a balanced budget by late 2008.
But growing government is growing government no matter which party pursues it, and it’s a problem that Steele exemplifies perfectly. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” (Socialist Lite®) presidency would have been virtually indistinguishable from Clinton’s (or GHWB’s, for that matter) if it hadn’t been for 9/11 and, again, this is an approach Steele and his ilk are a strong party to.
- You’ll need to give me concrete examples of this “Marxism” of which you speak.
You’ve already provided them. I can only assume you have some actual data on this somewhere, but if there’s a significant percentage of “liberals” out there who really think BHO is simultaneously destroying and nationalizing the economy too slowly, then they’re pretty much Marxists by definition.
- … when things are rolling again the voters will demand less taxes and hopefully less deficit.
You think the economy is just going to start “rolling again” all on its own? Really? Even while Congress and BHO’s administration are actively gutting it with the aim of creating permanent, one-party rule? Huh.
That’s a very interesting theory, but the reality doesn’t support it. Right now we’re heading for a perfect storm: the second, deeper half of a double-dip recession, increasing unemployment, a stagnant or further declining housing market, more huge losses at the GSEs, more bank closures, unimaginable State and federal deficits when the enormous cost of socialized medicine finally materializes and shrinks tax revenue “unexpectedly” while BHO pushes for more “stimulus” spending, a deteriorating U.S. Bond rating, inevitable interest rate hikes, (possible hyper-) inflation necessary to get out from under the crushing debt and, ultimately, a complete economic collapse that’ll make the credit meltdown scare look like… well… just what it was: a carefully timed “crisis” designed to help get BHO elected.
The Republican Congress will have its work cut out for it in November. But if they turn out to be “Steele-quality” politicos looking for “Big Tent” support instead of real leaders willing to make hard decisions – like ditching Medicare/Medicaid, de-funding the rest of the “Stimulus”, repealing socialized medicine and starting non-stop Congressional investigations into the unconstitutional actions this administration has pursued almost since day one – then you can kiss this Republic good-bye. I’m not optimistic.
The article decries the lack of empathy and simultaneously expresses a total lack of empathy–as do the comments. I suppose it should come as no surprise.
May we all take a deep breath and look and see where we ourselves perpetuate the problems we say we’re trying to fix.
We deal with the absence of something by perpetuating its absence…how deeply illogical.
- The article decries the lack of empathy and simultaneously expresses a total lack of empathy…
Really? Care to demonstrate how, exactly? Here, I’ll get you started…
Here are two definitions of empathy:
- “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another”
- “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner”
First, note the subtleties: the intellectual (not actual) identification with another; the vicarious (not first-hand) experiencing of feelings, etc.
Ultimately, empathy is all about imagination and understanding, i.e., putting oneself in another’s place – ostensibly, with the aim of understanding that other person’s motivations – without actually becoming that “other” person. That’s it.
The definitions say nothing about a requirement to agree with or to coddle the “other”. Empathy does NOT require the suspension of further observation, assessment or judgment of that “other”. As such, empathy also does not require that one even respect the attitudes of the “other”, e.g., if those attitudes don’t actually warrant respect.
So please explain how this article expresses a total lack of empathy.
Mercy, Goy.
Or are you just as big a flaming hypocrite and coward as Kiteley?
Way to show empathy and respect for a guy you’ve only heard about from one side. And me. And the acceptance of the cartoonist’s name-calling of anyone on her own side who’s not in the fanclub, even before they spoke. Nice trifecta.
I’ll guess Dr. Smith won’t write about the problems with right-wingers here without these golden qualities she claims to be for. That’s not such a help, having such a one-sided rule. You ranted about silly thing after silly thing like the CNN story that merely used a quote. They didn’t originate any kind of hyperboic cartoon.
But I did find it interesting that you even call Michael Steele “Socialist Lite”.
As for Michael Steele – the first openly Socialist Lite® chairman of the RNC – he’s been playing the race card almost ….
Well, he and his “minions” call themselves conservatives. You can break up the routine and bellow about them instead of making all the anger about liberals.
To weyah
May we all take a deep breath and look and see where we ourselves perpetuate the problems we say we’re trying to fix.
A few of us have been all for that and it’s something that needs to be said at some too extreme LW sites, too – which has been said. i may have seen a couple of posts from conservatives here that weren’t exactly what they claimed to be against. It didn’t go far.
Ask about conservatives who don’t go this far into the depths of seeing Obama as a “rapist” or liberals as idiotic America-haters , if you really want to see something interesting.
- Mercy…
Sorry, fresh out. Mercy in this context only begets more abuse. Or didn’t you actually read Helen’s article?
- Way to show empathy and respect for a guy …
See the definition of empathy. There is no “respect” requirement and in this particular instance Kiteley did nothing warranting any sort of respect.
- …you’ve only heard about from one side.
I’ve been reading and reality-testing Jeff’s commentary for years. I have no reason whatsoever to think he’s given a false account here. In fact, neither do you, you simply wish to assume that he has because of your own bias. If you have some evidence contradicting Jeff’s account, please present it. Until then, your incessant whining doesn’t come off as very convincing at all.
- And me.
And you… what? You think effectively accusing Jeff of lying, with no evidence whatsoever, warrants respect? Don’t make me giggle.
- And the acceptance of the cartoonist’s name-calling of anyone on her own side who’s not in the fanclub, even before they spoke.
I agree with her assessment. Here’s the thing: I’m actually part of the general ideological milieu in which those folks exist. You’re not. I can readily empathize with their concerns. You can’t. So, tell me again – what makes you think I should agree with your rejection of her statement instead of agreeing with her?
- … the CNN story that merely used a quote. They didn’t originate any kind of hyperboic cartoon.
You just sailed completely off the end of the scale into double standards. Jeff didn’t create the cartoon; CNN didn’t make the statement. CNN published a critical statement, made by someone else, about metaphorical rape involving a black man; Jeff published a political cartoon, created by someone else, with the caricature of rape involving a black man. If the latter is “racist” or “wrong”, then so is the former. So unless you want to be a flaming hypocrite, you’d better get busy venting against CNN with the same energy you’ve been dumping here.
- Well, he and his “minions” call themselves conservatives.
And con artists usually call themselves “investors” or “entrepreneurs” or some other label intended to put their mark at ease. Perhaps you should join the rest of us here on Planet Earth now.
See the definition of empathy.
I have. American Hertiage Dictionary:
Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
The attribution of one’s own feelings to an object.
There is no “respect” requirement and in this particular instance Kiteley did nothing warranting any sort of respect.
“Disrespect” is in the headline, fella. Yes, I read it and I’d rather not ask what on earth it could possibly mean to grown men and women who don’t use labels like gum wrappers. So anyway..
So you didn’t read Helen’s ‘article’? Liberals were blamed for their so-called “disrespect” toward differing opinions. You call a guy a “coward” when you haven’t even heard his POV. I didn’t call Goldstein a liar. I can read how he didn’t describe his entire conservation and gave just one side.
So, in respectful world, that should speak for itself. Both have a right to their opinions. Period. Goldstein is still free to say whatever he wants to say. He’s free post about it for a lifetime. He can go on one of his tears and make sexual descriptions of himself. Whatever. Others are free to see that as pouting or maybe something they’d rather not have their name attached to on that website. I’d say the same thing about a conservative distancing themselves from a LW website.
If you think that conservatives who disagree on a subject should be disrespected and demeaned…that also seems like the opposite of what was promoted. So…liberals don’t get to disagree and conservatives don’t get to disagree, either, without more name-calling. Interesting form of “respect” and “empathy” there.
So is this.
And con artists usually call themselves “investors” or “entrepreneurs” or some other label intended to put their mark at ease. Perhaps you should join the rest of us here on Planet Earth now.
You think YOU are on Planet Earth? And even conservatives who disagree with you don’t exist there? So, if someone defends say..David Frum, as a man..they’re not “real” conservatives? Do you really want to stick with that? And I hope you know not every liberal nor every conservative sees everything the same way.
Maybe you don’t know that. In any case, I’d love to hear the group opinion on this, all the way to the cartoonist, and Goldstein.
But Coburn has distinguished himself in another way: he’s really tired of how nasty politics has become in the nation.
In remarks at the town hall, Coburn referred to Pelosi, a California Democrat, as a “nice lady,” which prompted audible disagreement from Oklahomans. “Come on now. She is nice – how many of you all have met her? She’s a nice person,” Coburn said, according to Capitol News Connection.
He continued: “Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re not a good person. I’ve been in the Senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that, because I’ve been on the small side both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.”
Coburn also batted down constituents who raised ill-informed concerns about the health care bill. When one woman said she feared being thrown in jail if she didn’t get health insurance, Coburn advised turning off the TV.
“The intention is not to put any one in jail. That makes for good TV news on Fox but that isn’t the intention,” Coburn responded.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/06/tom-coburn-defends-pelosi-tells-constituents-to-turn-off-tv/
I’m interested in this one. I hope someone round here feels like giving this a thread. Meanwhile, maybe you or others can reply.
From here, it seems like he made excellent points about how we should behave.
- Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
Precisely. And that definition is 100% in agreement with the one(s) I provided. Did you have a point?
- “Disrespect” is in the headline…
Yes. Specifically the disrespect people like Kiteley exhibit when they’re called on their hypocrisy and cowardice.
- Liberals were blamed for their so-called “disrespect” toward differing opinions.
Now you’re just becoming hysterical. If liberals act disrespectful, then who else is to blame? God? The Giant Spaghetti Monster? Gaia? FDR’s ghost? Oh wait… I know… conservatives are to blame, right?
- You call a guy a “coward” when you haven’t even heard his POV.
Absolutely, based on an account that provides everything I need to know about his POV.
- I didn’t call Goldstein a liar.
Sure you did. Your entire river of drool in this thread is based on the notion that Jeff is providing a version of the facts that doesn’t match the truth. If you believed his account of the event, you wouldn’t keep whining about hearing only “his side” of the story. First off – that’s the only side available right now, AFAIK. Second, the only way that’s a problem is if you don’t trust Jeff to tell the truth, which you clearly don’t. That is your problem.
- Both have a right to their opinions.
Of course they do. But that’s not the point in question here. The point in question is how to respond to disrespectful leftists when they realize that their opinions demonstrate hypocrisy and cowardice. The point in question is how to respond to disrespectful, abusive leftists when they decide that your opinion will cause them some embarrassment.
- … you think that conservatives who disagree on a subject should be disrespected and demeaned…
Oops… back to the straw man. You just love those, don’t you.
- So, if someone defends say..David Frum, as a man..they’re not “real” conservatives?
When did “real conservatives” come into this? What does David Frum have to do with anything? Is there some reason – perhaps drug-related – that you are absolutely incapable of having a discussion about this without deflecting to Ted Rall or Warren Buffett or David Frum or Michael Steele or Coburn or some other irrelevant personality?
A short response, at least for now —
Oops… back to the straw man. You just love those, don’t you.
You call everything that makes your responses look ridiculous a “strawman”. You can’t even follow the threads. Someone brought up Ted Rall to me.
How can quoting a conservative like Coburn be off topic? It was directly ON topic. Well, unless your only interest is to damn liberals.
Worse for you – he said he’s friends with President Obama, and dispite their diusagreements he praised him as a good man.
That should be a big hit on this entire site.
- You call everything that makes your responses look ridiculous a “strawman”.
No, but you seem to want to generalize a bit to hastily. That’s another fallacy.
- How can quoting a conservative like Coburn be off topic?
Because it’s cherry-picking and deflection and just another talking point you picked up from whatever leftist sites you hang out in – no different from trying to use Warren Buffett to try to “prove” that BHO is something other than what his actions prove him to be.
Not only that, but Coburn’s statements – as published – were patently ridiculous, and exhibited the same inane lack of comprehension yours do. Whether or not Pelosi is a “nice person” is absolutely irrelevant. The fact that she has led the Democrat effort to explode the federal deficit, jets around the country at Taxpayer expense while preparing to nuke the economy with cap-and-tax legislation in order to reduce our “carbon footprint” and recently railroaded an unconstitutional bill through Congress using procedural misfeasance demonstrates that she’s the worst kind of corrupt elitist parasite. THAT is the issue, not whether or not she’s “nice”. Same goes for BHO. That Coburn wants to ignore this is his affair, but his comments on this topic are in fact irrelevant.
No, but you seem to want to generalize a bit to hastily. That’s another fallacy.
That’s even funnier than the “talk to the hand” pic above, which I pray was supposed to be funny and not sincere. When have you not generalized and not done it hastily about this entire subject?
Reality pains you, doesn’t it? A few dozen people in here may see the world with Glenn Beck-colored glasses but outside of here, there are many different points of view. Some are consevative, some are liberal, many overlap. No – it doesn’t mean people agree. It means they act like rational adults.
Tom Coburn is friends with the guy y’all love to hate. He was honest enough to say no one is going to jail if they don’t buy insurance. You think he would condone that hysterical cartoon? Great. You can believe anyone who disagrees with you is vile or cowardly, that liberals hate America and never did anything good, that conservatives are saints and never did anything contemptible in history. You can believe in flying pink pigs, too. You have opinions. You do not have facts . People who do all that in reverse about conservatives are called sociopaths.
Mull that over. Not that you’re capable of admitting what that means.
There’s still a lot good to learn from Coburn’s statements. You can ignore it, you can’t change it.
This is the BEST part.
Not only that, but Coburn’s statements – as published – were patently ridiculous, and exhibited the same inane lack of comprehension yours do/
You’ll fall all over yourself excusing a childish, foul-mouthed, surly blogger (his online threats of physical violence toward his “enemies” are legendary) but you get in a snit because a conservative Republican senator disagrees with the small-minded, ultra-partisan idea that Obama hates America and Pelosi is the soul of evil .
“Liberals are soooo disrespectful! They show NO empathy!”
Priceless humor, folks. I’d tell my conservative friends about this place but they’d be horrified at this kind of extreme of the extreme views. You make Coburn look like a far LWer, by comparison. And God help you, you’re so biased and incapable of listening to differing ideas, you probably will. A little further, and unfortunately you might make him the “rapist”.
- That’s even funnier …
And that’s not a substantive response.
- …they act like rational adults.
You should try to emulate them.
- He was honest enough to say no one is going to jail if they don’t buy insurance.
No, that’s not what he said, and he was being anything but ‘honest’. Read it again and get an adult to explain the big words if you don’t understand them.
Coburn said, “The intention is not to put any one in jail.” I know liberals like you think “intention” is the same as reality, but in fact it’s not. I’m sure the “intention” of the tax code is not to send anyone to prison, but it does in fact happen.
Pelosi’s original bill contained the following two provisions:
• Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.
This has been relatively common knowledge for months. So any “rumor” that people will go to jail if they “violate” this unconstitutional mandate is perfectly well-founded.
Since ALL of the negotiations on these bills were done in secret – which made a liar out of BHO, again – there’s no way for the average American to know whether these provisions survived or not. Were they removed from the bill that was passed? Coburn doesn’t say. Since he was going to vote against it no matter what, he probably never even read the bill, which is why he had to equivocate. If those provisions were removed, then he should have been clear about it. He wasn’t. Fail for you.
- You think he would condone that hysterical cartoon?
I’m sorry, I forgot that you have the attention span of a parakeet. See above, where I wrote, “Pay Attention: I COULDN’T CARE LESS how any particular person would “react” to a political cartoon that accurately caricatures recent events using a theme that is perfectly descriptive of those events.”
- You can believe anyone who disagrees with you is vile or cowardly, blah, blah, blah…
Again with the straw man fantasies. Amazing. Perhaps we ARE dealing with a form of personality disorder here.
- There’s still a lot good to learn from Coburn’s statements.
Really? Like what? That he’s friendly with a guy who lies for a living? What we can learn from that is that Coburn is intellectually dishonest.
- You’ll fall all over yourself excusing…
Again – there’s nothing to excuse. YOU are the one who has a problem here. YOU need to figure out how to resolve your problem.
- “Liberals are soooo disrespectful! They show NO empathy!”
Is that what you really think? Because I don’t see that sentiment posted anywhere by anyone else.
- You make Coburn look like a far LWer, …
Actually, he did a pretty fair job of that all by himself. So it’s no surprise you’d try to deflect the discussion over to him and what you think he thinks.
Oh – one other thing…
- You’ll fall all over yourself…
Do let us all know when you’ve organized your PR campaign against CNN for publishing that woman’s “racist” comments. We certainly wouldn’t want anyone trying to empathize with her feelings of having been “raped” by a black man, so I’m sure everyone will want to get on board.
I thinks this sums up the whole conversation nicely.
So R U….!!!! :: ))
I think both side are trying to consolidate power and anytime in history where we gather too much power to a single entity or smaller group we are all in trouble. Especially those who hold that power. Conservatives are for power in the hands of corps. and liberals in the form of government. We all know government in all past instances has been proven to grow more corrupt with power but… when we hand our fates to an entity that does not have, not only checks and balances in place(ie:term limits) but no governing doctrine such as the constitution save for market forces we are in even greater peril. The main idea in the US is that we have the opportunity…nay we are forced to have that power change hands regularly and THAT is the crux of both partys ideology and to hate or lie or even make fun of those same principles is what WILL lead us to sociopathy in every individual.