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.

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…

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)

The Republican Party policy platform opposes SSM/AoD.

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.

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?

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.

What a great description.

When the Right Is Right