Mark Follman, writing for Salon (sorry, interminable commercial necessary to read what should be free), criticizes my response to some AP photographs of a killing in Baghdad the other day. He makes some good points (and others not so good), but what interests me is that he immediately lumps me as a “conservative blogger,” although I favor gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose, etc. It seems that your attitude toward the war has become a new litmus test for ideology. No matter that some of us favor the war in part because we support the aforementioned positions. Follman and many of the more “traditionalist” left have been blinded by a monolithic approach to political thinking. Too bad for them. History is already passing them by.
Roger, that’s what’s killing old-school liberalism in this country. If you’re not as left as the latest lefty craze, you’re a “conservative” (in public; in private you’re a racist homophobic fascist theocrat).
If you believe in anything other than abosolutely unfettered abortion, including late-term abortions and the woman’s right to choose to abort two of her triplet foetuses to sustain her lifestyle of choice, you’re a “conservative”.
If you believe in equality of civil benefits for gays but not in a state-sanctioned redefinition of marriage, you’re a “conservative”.
If you believe the state should provide a safety net for the needy but not a cradle-to-grave womb for the lazy, you’re a “conservative.”
If you believe the schools should acknowledge the role religious faith played in the development of this country, without necessarily mandating state-sanctioned religious dogma, you’re a “conservative”.
Modern “progressives” demand soul-mates, not neighbors, and it makes them impossible to live with.
Perhaps Follman is right and you should think of yourself as a conservative. I certainly think of myself as one, and favor gay marriage, abortion rights, legalization, etc. But — and it is the key issue of the last 60 years — I favor the use of force to defend freedom. You seem concerned that “liberals” have lost the to freedom committment you attributed to them in your youth. But perhaps they never had it Roger. Perhaps the real defenders of freedom all along were those who supported the Berlin airlift, the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, the 67 war in Israel, the attack on Saddam’s reactor, the Gulf War, the MX missile …
Conservative has meant “cold warrior” and “hawk” for 40 years now. Get hip to the lingo Roger!
Roger, I personally think all the labels are B.S. You’re exactly right about the idiocy of calling someone like you a “conservative.” I hold the same positions, and get the same “epithet” hurled at me.
Funny – my REALLY “conservative” friends think that I am a liberal! But, they’re not nasty about my positions, like those on the Left are.
Personally, I think that the Lefties who resort to the “who cares what you think; you’re a CONSERVATIVE” kinda retort are lazy for starters. And, perhaps they are lazy because when their rubber lips meet the road, they cannot come up with cogent arguments to debate you.
I don’t care what people call us. But if they have a problem with the positions that we hold, then try to discuss why we’re wrong and they are correct … if indeed they are able to do so.
I too have been pigeonholed in the same way Roger describes, despite the so-called “liberal” parts of my belief system.
If you do not toe the line and oppose the war (any war fought by the US), you are a “conservative,” despite anything else you might believe.
It’s eye-opening to see this after a life spent voting for Democrats. So much for the party of inclusion.
Good point, but it works both ways. As a hawk, my party-line liberal friends think that I am a conservative. As a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, environmentalist, my party-line conservative friends think that I am a liberal.
I am baffled by the group-think on both sides.
Todd,
I think the observation is that liberals seem more likely to be party-line liberals, and less likely to be nice about it. So it seems to me.
Todd, Bostonion ó The difference is, it seems to me, conservatives believe in things, “progressives” make that belief a part of their very being. So if you disagree with them, you don’t disagree with what they say, you invalidate their actual existence. Makes ‘em testy…
If you believe in the right of America to ever use force, you are now a “conservative.” I believe in war in the ME to allow the good people there to wrest control of the lives from their Tony Soprano/Caligulan Dear Leaders.
As my lefty friends sputter, “You’re such a conservative now!” I gently correct them, “No, I’m a warmonger.”
Roger
“No matter that some of us favor the war in part because we support the aforementioned positions”
I think this to be the cause of the cognitive dissonance. Based on my experience, there is no middle ground, it is all or nothing, having the temerity of holding individualist views is considered an affront to ideologues of both sides. With the Demos being most offended of course.
With the exception of the Democratic Party, I have never been a joiner of groups (aside from the military) of any kind. As a resident of San Francisco in the 70′s this was sometimes difficult, we had the ESTains, Scientologists, and various other brands of ‘isms’, and believe me I had many friends trying to get me to see the ‘light’ of most of them. I always decided I preferred my independence.
It took 9/11 to make me realize that the area in which I most needed my independence was politics. No more party lines, from either side, for the foreseeable future.
OT, but maybe not. On a personal note, I am at the moment having an inner struggle as to whether I should renew my subscription to “The New Republic”, having been a subscriber for the past 30 or so years. With the exception of the movie and book reviews I am hard pressed to find reasons to do so. The political views therein seem to have taken a decided swing to the excesses of the Left. And, yes, I am aware of the history of the magazine and so realize the naivety of that statement. I think they could use a dose of independence as well.
Thanks to you Roger, and the whole wonderfulness of the blogsphere, I am feeling I can cut the cord to TNR and still maintain a semblance of being intelligently informed on the great issues that confront this country. Thank you.
PJ
I’m stealing that, ‘warmonger’ that is. LOL
Kristof has a good column today that relates to this issue.
When the Right Is Right
The sad thing is that the definitions of liberal and conservative seem to be under the control of the most extreme on the left. But, there are the extreme on the right who become apoplectic at ìrhinos.î They should all read ìTrue Believerî by Eric Hoffer. I would hope it could still be found somewhere in print as it has never been more pertinent than today. (The True Believer gets his or her sense of self esteem from joining a group with a magnificent purpose of changing the world, and the way out of True Believership is to develop your own self esteem based on your own personal character).
I get so tired of other people telling me where I fit.
Modern “progressives” demand soul-mates, not neighbors, and it makes them impossible to live with.
What a great description.
Roger,
I suppose I’m a conservative, yet I also believe in a woman’s right to choose…if she chooses responsibly. She should choose birth control options before sex if she does not desire children. Backing irresponsible choices labels one a fool, not a liberal.
I think this is where we all start chanting at Roger – “one of us, one of us, one of us” – just like at the end of Tod Browning’s “Freaks.”
This lumping in of people into the “right-wing” category reminds me of the times when a troll stumbles in here, does the tired “BushLied/
PeopleDied/JesuslandSucks” song and dance, and gets pummeled by other commenters – to which the troll invariably responds with “I hope you wingnuts enjoy your echo chamber.”
I think the people who post here regularly are pretty much in agreement on the rightness of Iraq and the War in general, but “echo chamber”? I’ve seen some charged, albeit civil, exchanges in the comments threads here, rather than lockstep thinking. I know from reading posts that Roger’s commenters include people with liberal social policy outlooks, and people with traditional/conservative ones. Pure economics doesn’t seem to be discussed much here (or else I’m gliding over it), but from what I’ve seen, there’s an array of opinions on those matters as well.
Lumping Roger and the posters here as “conservatives” or “Republicans” or “wingnuts” is yet another example of how the Left/Democrats seem determined to become ever more of a “small tent” party.
(Incidentally, I used to actually subscribe to Salon – so where do I fit on the spectrum?
Roger,
No matter that some of us favor the war in part because we support the aforementioned positions. Follman and many of the more “traditionalist” left have been blinded by a monolithic approach to political thinking.
Ah, well, just variables in an age-old psychological formula and examples of domain expansion and logical fallacy. You just have to put them all together. Let’s highlight a few and have a little fun. First let’s start with several of Fallon’s positions (undoubtedly) on public policy:
1) Same-sex marriage (SSM) and abortion on demand (AoD) are correct policies.
2) Opposition to SSM and abolishing AoD are incorrect policies.
It begins simply, fairly, and reasonably enough.
(Not Yet) Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM/AoD = Incorrect Policies
3) Personal values play a part in one’s positions on public policy.
4) Incorrect policy preferences MAY reflect incorrect values.
The fallacies begin by assuming that personal values are the sum total driving force of all positions on public policy. The public/rational morphs into the personal/emotional.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM/AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values
5) People with Incorrect Values are Bad People.
Simple enough. But now opposing SSM/AoD automatically makes you a bad person.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM/AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People
Now let’s pivot for a moment and apply Richard McEnroe’s extremely perceptive observation on identity and politics, namely that some people wrap up their identity, their sense of worth as a human being, with their politics, with their positions on public policy. It means that you cannot simply change your position on policy, now you have to change your identity, sometimes radically. No easy feat, that.
6) Values are a part of your identity, and your identity is wrapped up with your postions on public policy.
7) Changing policy positions requires a change of identity (values).
Anybody who questions your policy positions questions your identity and sense of worth as a human being. Thus disagreement on matters of policy represent a threat to your identity, a threat to you personally.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM and AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People = Threat to Identity (Self)
Domain expansion and logical fallacy: From specific policies on SSM/AoD to ALL policies:
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM/AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People = Threat to Identity (Self) = Republican Party Platform
9) The Republican Party is made up of Republicans. (Go figure
Domain expansion and logical fallacy: From policy position of an organization to beliefs of ALL members.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM and AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People = Threat to Identity (Self) = Republican Party Platform = Republicans
Now we’re getting into dangerous territory. Republicans are becoming in the minds of the liberal reactionary bad people in general who threaten you in some way, not just people who disagree with you. They’ve become a threat to you personally, psychologically.
10) Conservatives gravitate towards the Republican Party.
Domain expansion and logical fallacy: Therefore ALL conservatives are Republicans.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM and AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People = Threat to Identity (Self) = Republican Party Platform = Republicans = Conservatives
11) Conservatives are not postmodern liberals.
Domain expansion and logical fallacy: Therefore, ALL who are not postmodern liberals are conservatives.
Reactionary Formula: Opposition to SSM and AoD = Incorrect Policies = Incorrect Values = Bad People = Threat to Identity (Self) = Republican Party Platform = Republicans = Conservatives = Not Postmodern Liberals
And that is how through just a little disagreement or skepticism you are transmogrified in the minds of the reactionary Left into an evil conservative Republican. I know; I’ve been there. Ultimately your great sin is NOT being a postmodern liberal in every way, shape, and form.
Now then, let’s apply this formula to critiques on the war.
12) President Bush is a Republican.
13) Bush Initiated the Iraq War.
Applying the formula, Bush = Republican = Incorrect Policies = Bad People, then the war is ipso facto incorrect by virtue of Bush being a Republican. Of this you can be sure, arguments be damned. What’s more Bush is clearly a bad person, in fact he MUST be, and people like him are a threat to your personal well-being. That kind of thinking is how you get people like Cameron Diaz alarmed that rape rooms were just on the horizon if Bush got re-elected. After all, Republicans and Conservatives are Bad People Who Threaten You Personally. Rapists are Bad People who Threaten You Personally. Therefore, Republicans are rapists. Just one example.
My main point is that ultimately you can trace opposition to the war to support for certain domestic issues which serve as powerful identity markers, or perhaps Republican opposition to those domestic policies. Almost always opposition to the war is a false construct built on a foundation of prejudice borne of domestic squabbles.
Sorry for the long post.
Er, ‘Fallon’ = ‘Follman’
Roger,
If you support legal abortion, I wish you’d just say it rather than the weasly euphemism “a woman’s right to choose”. There’s something darned unmanly about that phrase. I happen to support a woman’s right to be born. I can deal just fine with people on the other side, but that darned “right to choose” phrase just drives me up the wall! If there’s nothing wrong with it in your eyes, then just name it!
It’s funny, if someone says “I support abortion”, I think, “oh, well, too bad, it’d be great if I could convince you otherwise, but I probably can’t”, but if someone uses that “choose” phrase, man I just cringe…
Great blog.
When I was young, I believed in socialism and the dawn of a new age where peace and prosperity would flourish and all peoples would be respected and blah blah blah . . .
My husband and I were hippies, lived in a cult commune for years, saw the warts first hand – the idealism grounded in myth, illusions (delusions) about the nature of reality and degradation of the spirit. We realized that no matter what the flaws in the U.S. political system and government, it is still the best of the rest.
Most of our friends from this era still lean left and have joined the democrats. We’ve made many new friends and they tend to be more conservative and republicans. I feel no alliegance to either party and have become a Nine/Twelver, voting for the candidate who I think understands that the greatest problem we in the west face now is from jihad and islamofacism.