Political Change — Revisited
I have been asked to give a speech at the Roanoke Conference — an important meeting of Washington State Republicans – on January 24. They want me to talk about my personal story — my evolution from standard issue Hollywood lefty to the reviled right-wing co-founder of PJ Media I am today.
I have already discussed this at length in my book Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown, but it’s been a few years since I wrote it and this speech will give me an opportunity to reexamine the subject of political change. Indeed, I haven’t ever really deserted it because that is partly the theme of The Party Line, the just-published play by Sheryl Longin and me. The topic fascinates me.
One of the most interesting aspects of political change is that most of us who have experienced it don’t feel as if we have changed. We still see ourselves as the same person, live in the same skin. To us, it is the world that has changed — at least to some degree.
As an illustration, a significant number of people changed their views of global affairs immediately after September 11, 2001. Our country was attacked by an ideology that was misogynistic, homophobic, anti-democratic, racist, xenophobic, and religiously intolerant and that sought world domination — in short was the enemy of all classically liberal society since the Enlightenment.
The majority of our people recognized this and sought to push back, asserting the values of our culture — for a year or two. Then — as political correctness reasserted itself — the majority of that majority reverted to type and we had the election of Barack Obama… twice.
A few of us remained changed, now open to ideas we once thought anathema, or reactionary, when we were younger. How did that happen and why was I among them?
To be honest, despite having written a book and a play about it, I don’t really know. Political change remains a mystery to me, although I think it one of the most important topics, perhaps the crucial topic, we need to examine, because without political change, what’s the point of democracy? If people can’t be persuaded to switch sides, why bother?
The reasons for resistance to change are clear to me, however. Those who change risk losing friends, family, and livelihood. Even more importantly, they face personality disintegration, the loss of self-image. Who wants to deal with that?
I did apparently. But it was largely accidental. I was part of that majority reaction after 9/11, but, unlike others, I never looked back, was not recidivist. Part of the reason for that was my vocation. As a writer, I found it difficult to lie. I couldn’t write well what I no longer believed.
Yet all around me I saw split personalities, still do. The prototypical Hollywood (and DC) liberal lives two disparate lives, one public and one private. In public he or she is the greatest of altruists, in private the greediest and most ambitious of persons. The former acts as a cover for the latter, to the self and to others.
This system is so enduring, so entrenched, that it makes political change exceptionally difficult to achieve. How do you change someone so successful, someone who has wealth and power while feeling so inordinately good about him or herself?
I am speaking obviously about the so-called thought leaders here — the wannabe solons of New York, Washington and Los Angeles who dominate our media and entertainment and tell the hoi polloi how to live and think. These people have little incentive for change, even though in some cases their careers are in jeopardy. It’s hard for them to make a connection between the current economic uncertainty and the system that nurtured them for so long.
So what do we do to encourage change? Here are some preliminary thoughts.
Be humble. Few, if any, of us make drastic alterations in our lives and thought because someone won an argument. We have to come to things ourselves — or think we have. We have to own our change. These things take time and happen when we least expect them, sometimes when we don’t know they are happening.
When you see someone who is ripe for change, encourage him or her, but do it gently, responsively, and not confrontationally. And do not look for or expect an entire ideational shift. Be grateful for what you get.
As I write this, I am still a social liberal and likely to remain so. I have changed only in the economic and foreign policy areas. Many are like me. Be glad we’re here. We’ll try to accept you too, if you’re socially conservative.
Most of all, do not gloat — on the inside or on the outside. Generations of therapists have warned us of the perils of our “need to be right” (not politically but personally). The therapists were correct in their admonition. Remember, the goal here is the political change of others, not to be victorious ourselves.







Your story is my story in virtually every detail that you mentioned. I am thrilled to know that I am not alone!
All talk about change is talk without understanding oneself and one’s family of origin, but that is verboten in the culture we inhabit. See http://clarespark.com/2013/01/16/gun-control-laws-quick-fixes-undoing/. Psychiatry can be reductive, but without close examination of famliy relationships, no matter how painful, all talk of political change is likely to be hot air. No offense intended. Freud was ever so much more controversial than Marx in the punditry of the 20th century. Why? Because populists were anticapitalist, and their critique of capitalism is widely shared.
Welcome to the Evergreen State, Roger. I wish I could come see you. Enjoy your visit. I loved your book.
Most people will change only when all other options are exhausted. I still think the only way a conservative will become president is when the economy gets so bad, as it did under Jimmy Carter, that Americans are willing to try almost anything to get out of the mess the liberals created.
I just think we HAVE reached a tipping point in this country. Too many people are either employed by government or getting entitlement benefits from government. Either way, people are getting a check from the government and they will vote for whoever will keep that process going. So only when they stop getting those checks will they fully understand how broke we are.
A lot has been said about conservatives having to “educate” voters in the wonders of conservatism. Rubbish. People know full well that smaller government, less taxes, and fewer regulations will stimulate business and the economy, giving them more employment opportunities. THAT means more money in their pockets. But, hey, Republicans and Romney only said that about a billion times during the campaign, but the low information voters out there who were getting a check from the government didn’t seem to be listening. So when we finally do go bust by 2016 and the economy still stinks, maybe these same voters will be more receptive to conservative ideas.
Ditto, Libertyship, but for “when the checks stop coming” part, and the “HAVE reached the tipping point”.
It will take long after the chekcs stop to reach bottom and bounce, bounce HARD. . .
— and we’re well through the tipping point and falling heavily.
Simon rightly and deftly describes the masks of altruism without which most progressives’ personalities would disintegrate by baring their contemptibility beneath.
T.S. Eliot said it well too:
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who … don’t mean to do harm, but … they do not see it … because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
Just one example: Minimum Wage “means well”, but it destroys apprenticeship, creates ne’er-do-wells of youth and irresponsible workers for the future, and worse, it encourages shut-in maladies among the elderly.
No correction exists short of eliminating the whole ball of wax that our sclerotic Republic has become. I.E.:
1. Sunset all laws, statutes, regulations and ordinances, and test all rewrites for constitutionality.
2. Limit all elective terms and eliminate pensions of elected and appointed officials.
3. Eliminate the Civil Service, privatize functions truly needed and drug test anyone left.
None of that will happen without hitting bottom and BOUNCING big time.
The FALL, despite dips and pauses like a falling leaf, remains unstoppable.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.
We are going the way of Zimbabwe, which has hit bottom, bounced hard a time or two, and has yet to begin its climb out of the socialist pit.
Always right; occasionally correct.
I’ll settle for that.
As a writer, I found it difficult to lie. I couldn’t write well what I no longer believed.
Isn’t it fundamentally about character ? You couldn’t do the hypocrisy even if it might have appeared to be (superficially) to your advantage to live and write that way.
The prototypical Hollywood (and DC) liberal lives two disparate lives, one public and one private. In public he or she is the greatest of altruists, in private the greediest and most ambitious of persons. The former acts as a cover for the latter, to the self and to others.
Pretty awful way to live, in constant fear that the mask might slip and the behind- the-scenes Self will come out. Kind of like BHO and the reason he uses the teleprompter so much, because he gets into trouble (and unintelligible murkiness) when he speaks candidly and reveals his true self.
How do you change someone so successful, someone who has wealth and power while feeling so inordinately good about him or herself?
Give it your best shot, non-confrontational and with humility.
And then walk away, because only life and experience can really do anything to reach the smug.
A lot of people who have inexorably and relentlessly supported Obama are getting a little surprise in seeing that their January paychecks are smaller as a function of the constraints on the payroll tax being lifted January 1.
(Hey, it’s just those “rich guys” who are supposed to get screwed !)
Must be George Bush’s fault.
Why does Hollywood’s public/private persona surprise anyone? An actor’s ability to play different roles reveals a lack of foundational personality. This is what makes the great actors so good at what they do. Since they aren’t really anyone, they can be anyone. Add a desperate need for attention and you have the Hollywood liberal.
It’s interesting that your social views didn’t change over time. It sort of parallels my own experience.
Back when I was college-aged – can’t say “in college” since I dropped out for many years and am now “in college” again.
Anyway, back in my “post-high-school” age I was a lefty regards to my views on economics and military. I thought soldiers were killers (I joined the Marines, later) and I thought capitalism was evil greed. However, I was a social moderate even then. Yeah, I was for gay rights (though the term “rights” in this case is actually hyperbole) and an end to the drug and prostitution prohibitions, but I was ALWAYS anti-abortion and pro-gun. It may have something to do with my rural Kentucky upbringing (especially about the guns), but the fact is that as left as I was on economics and defense, I couldn’t come further than the middle on social issues.
Then I grew up. Now I’m Mr Arch-Capitalist and a hawk, and I’m still pro-gun and anti-abortion. However, I’m also still pro gay-marriage and against the prohibition of drugs and prostitution. So, my social views didn’t move one inch.
My point is, are this things the parts of our beliefs that are immune to ideology and dependent almost entirely upon either your upbringing or personality? Or is it just coincidence?
Roger:
You didn’t change, you were just behaving rationally to new information in 2001.
Men cannot change themselves, they either behave rationally to preserve their self interest or they do not. Men calculate what they can get away with, how far they can go, some men are not good at math.
In the case of politico’s they generally follow the money. Some men are so greedy and ideological that they will sleep with a poisonous serpent, as do those who make strange bedfellows with radical Islam, or those who propose to take away guns and violate our constitution without the courage to try and change the document itself. I’m sure crazy Joe thinks he is serving his own best interest or he IS crazy. As for B.O.,is he not serving his masters too? What these irrational men lack is true courage and therefore they also lack the light of the truth. Some men come to the light of the truth because they are of the light, others remain in the outer darkness because they are of the darkness.
There is only one agent of real change available to men that the one true God has offered and that is His Christ. Otherwise all men are just treading around in the darkness of their fallen selves beating same dead horse over and over again. Haven’t we been this way before?
It’s not hard to tell the rational men from the irrational men, you know them by what they do. A truly rational man will choose the light of day rather than the permanent darkness, knowing that he will preserve his immortal soul. In the end all men make a choice. Glad you made yours. Let’s hope you continue to move in the right direction.
I heard this profound wisdom many years ago from my own eight-grade educated grandfather. But it was recently repeated by Thomas Sowell and I thought it worth sharing.
And in a nutshell, that is the problem with America. That and the inability to realize truth. There is no real accountability, whether public or private. Worse, at least half this country has no expectations of accountability or truth. They simply exist in a vacuum, almost like amoeba in a test tube. Dumb sheep being led to and fro…
Roger, I don’t agree with much of what you post as you are far too liberal for my tastes. But I am grateful for favors large and small. Without your vision and your contacts, I would never have met many of the fine people I have met here at PJMedia.
This place and a few others have given me a glimmer of hope the nation hasn’t gone completely mad and as long as a few candles are lit, not completely dark either. So thank you and best wishes for the New Year.
What a gracious response. I love the commenters here on PJMedia.
Seconded.
See also – believe it or not – The Onion’s non-satire appendage A.V. Club and – I double-dare you – The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Reporter has some remarkably conservative commenters, who frequently call out that enclave on its BS.
Also excellent: the film reviews of Red Letter Media. To paraphrase Monty Burns “They’re small, but they’re good.” Mr. Plinkett’s reviews of “Titanic” and “Avatar”, for instance, could have been written by Mark Steyn.
P.S. Nice post, Roger. Two days after the election, I increased my PJTV subscription. It really was the thing to do.
I recall hearing that back around 1975 explorers made an exciting discovery in deepest darkest New Guinea, a tribe that had no previous contact with modern civilization.
The explorers radioed for additional supplies to support their studies. A helicopter was dispatched to the location.
The members of the tribe had an interesting reaction to the arrival of the helicopter. They refused to look at it. They had no concept of flying machines, and insects of that size were unknown, so the helicopter could not exist. So they refused to look at it.
So many of today’s people of which you speak are so sophisticated that they are in fact very primitive. You won’t be able to enable them to see things as they are until they realize they are in reality no more knowledgeable than those tribesmen.
“We’ll try to accept you too, if you’re socially conservative.”
Try?
I can’t speak for all social conservatives, but for me personally, The United States of America was founded in such a manner that it can be compared to a covenant with God (I refer to the language used and references to God in the Declaration of Indepedence). I suspect that He will only tolerate so much immorality and sin, before His wrath is kindled. While I support basic human rights, I still reserve the right to speak out against flagrant sin (homosexuality being one of them), and to seek an environment that is HEALTHY to raise a family in. You use the word “homophobic” in your post, which in MSM terms, means “disagrees with us; cannot be tolerated”. It would seem that you have one foot on either side in some areas. While I am glad that you made the progression to fiscal conservatism, I would hope that you consider that unless a society strives to be its very best spiritually, all else is vain. Material prosperity is also just a veneer. This underlying loyalty to God, family values and national heritage is what drives me, and I consider it to be the true anchor and foundation of strong nations.
“He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.”
Job 12:23,24
At the same time, this isn’t like the Amish community. What good is it going to do to shun everyone who isn’t “Christian Enough” for you?
Wake up. It’s going to take PEOPLE to fix this mess. Stop sitting back and thinking “Oh, God will do something about this!” or “Well, if the Republic dies, it’s because God is angry at us for not doing enough to outlaw homosexuality and abortion!”
People have free will. Washington Progressives are using theirs to take yours away. Throwing up your hands and saying that it’s all up to God now won’t ever bring it back.
You’re going to have to start working with those people who “aren’t Christian Enough” for you, the ones who are honestly interested in trying to do SOMETHING about this rampant runaway spending, and about the spread of Militant Islam.
You misunderstand.
I would be perfectly willing to work with those who disagree with me. I have a lot of respect for Roger for his candour and his achievements, and do not believe in “writing people off” with a label of contempt.
However, I will not be cowtowed into accepting those views which are according to scripture, an affront to God, and especially will not be silenced.
If my religious-based views offend you, then you are part of the problem.
If people are truly interested in an honest discussion, then surely they would be willing to understand and learn more about what makes Christians tick. I don’t know what the demographics are, but in a “free” society our viewpoints and the precepts and doctrines that form those viewpoints still count for something.
My first comment was not meant to condemn or alienate, but to do two things:
1) Establish boundaries for myself – clear, unequivocal boundaries.
2) Invite others to consider the power that comes to groups and individuals if they will embrace more truth and light, and consider the harm, consequences and sorrow that come when people turn away from God in large numbers.
The Word of God is very clear. The more people who will embrace it or at least consider what it has to say, the better off we will be.
Such viewpoints should be a part of public discourse or any online forum.
Simon: “How do you change someone so successful, someone who has wealth and power while feeling so inordinately good about him or herself?”
How? By establishing a personal rapport first.
Someone is much more likely to consider–and perhaps even accept–advice from a true friend, than they are from someone they consider to be a threat.
Unlike some other political junkies, I pride myself on having had friendships with folks all across the political spectrum, from libertarian to socialist (she voted for Ralph Nader rather than the Dem or Repub candidates). We like each other personally. We confide in each other and we commiserate with each other.
And so when the conversation turns to current affairs, we’re more willing to listen to each other.
We don’t do enough to deal with the personal angle. Getting in someone’s face is no way to convince them. It’s a sure-fire turnoff.
No offense here Sinz, as you obviously a regular contributor and apparently well written.
While I can’t argue with what you infer that you get a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, I have read your screed for some months now and have established from your own comments that your bedrock principles more like molten lava.
Unless devil’s advocate counts as principle?
I really like your warm and fuzzy like I do a bubbly jacuzzi, but I can’t see that the Rodney King method has appreciably affected the country in any positive matter either. In fact, it has been my observation we have so many people straddling the fence wanting their cake and eating it to, it is readily apparent they are more problem than solution, at the very best hind teat on the boar hog.
What exactly do you stand for? I can take 100 other regular posters here and tell you exactly which side of the aisle they are on in but a few posts, whether I agree with them or not. With you, it’s like feeling the wind of the vacillating fan when I read your posts.
I’m an unabashed American nationalist first,
a fiscal conservative second,
And a social libertarian third. In that order of priority.
I came from a poor family. My dad, a factory worker, was laid off frequently; the work he did was seasonal. I know what it’s like to go hungry–when I was a kid, there were nights when all we had was thin soup and crackers.
As a kid, I got to see firsthand how liberal welfare programs can turn decent but poverty-stricken people into zombies. I wouldn’t be a conservative if I didn’t think that conservatism offers hope and opportunity for those who are less fortunate. And it’s why I cannot abide the “Screw them!” attitude of so many embittered conservatives these days.
And I’ve lived long enough–and I’ve known enough people from all across the political spectrum–to understand not to couch every political issue in apocalyptic terms.
I didn’t vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012. I don’t agree with him, and I don’t even like him. But I’m not hysterical about him.
If Obama’s second term is a success, Obama could end up legitimizing liberalism for decades to come. If his second term is a failure, then that won’t happen.
I’m just going to wait and see how it plays out.
Hope this helps.
Not really because Obama’s first term was clearly failure and that apparently didn’t make any difference. Add to the fact that you apparently aren’t steeped enough to see the blatant power grab as we speak, or the clear infringement of First Amendment in the first Obama term, or the inherent clear and present danger of $1.2 trillion in debt incurred per year, or the real middle class squeeze under the tutelage of Dear Leader, or that media more agitprop than news for Dimocratic whims, or the fact that statism has never worked and will never work. It’s not just Obama that plays useful idiot, but his entire cabinet, mind you. I’m sure you believe their intentions pure if not misguided; I do not and find them sheer evil with Obama lead malcontent.
As far as the apocalyptic? Obama is not really the issue. He is the most obvious symptom. It is the 60MM people like your Ralph Nader friend who are the problem, and yes there will be a time that idiocy does lead to both war and decay, the latter already here. Radical Islam and progressive politic in general fill the vacuum of weakness, fence straddling and amorality. They share a common trait in that they bring out the worst in humanity in my estimation.
I perceive men like Neville Chamberlain and Juan Peron once thought as you did.
You’ll forgive me if I do condone the “Screw Them” and in fact, will no longer play doormat or lap dog, now encouraging it after this election which has become the straw that broke…I now have no intent of wasting another four years trying to rationalize with the irrational and stupid, but to do my small part to break them, if possible. Unlike my opponents, I will take responsibility for my own actions.
But I appreciate the stab at explanation. I cannot fathom your life’s conclusions of the matters in hand as my story not all that different from yours minus the Ralph Nader friends, but at least I now have some background.
The elephant in the room, as it ALWAYS is when we get to the “Religious Right or Bust”, is Homosexuality.
The Religious Right tends to seem to want to run off anybody who doesn’t want it outlawed, and claims that if you don’t want it outlawed, then you must support the Progressive Agenda, because “we don’t want you”.
I realize that this isn’t everybody, but it’s an increasingly louder drumbeat.
And the Proggies are encouraging them to be louder about it, because they think it works to their advantage.
i became like a person weak in faith, that i might gain the weak. i have become everything to everyone in order to save at least some of them
1 corinthians 9:22
my views changed 911 but they changed again and i think people who need to be right do so because of how doubt causes them pain and confusion
I think the problem is alluded to in your statement about the 9/11 hijackers: “…in short was the enemy of all classically liberal society since the Enlightenment.”
I have realized that many of my friends have also rejected the enlightenment and retreated into a sort of self-aggrandizing smug righteousness, and don’t want to come out of it. Political opinion to them is valued for the intense pleasure given to their sense of their own wonderfulness, not as to whether it is true or not.
There is a CS Lewis line in “Screwtape” along the lines of “Convince a human to believe in something not because it is true, but for some other reason.” Most of the people I deal with are interested in the other reason.
As many have said, it’s the culture stupid. When I changed from a knee-jerk political-thought-devoid liberal to a more conservative / libertarian minded person, I wasn’t in an environment where I was pressured all the time to think correctly, and the cultural pressure from movies and the media was only a fraction of what it is now. imho, it has accelerated by at least an order of magnitude since 9/11.
The miracle is that anybody in Hollywood ever utters a conservative word. Those who do are a lot braver than the rest of us.
The irretrievable mistake that conservative have made is to abandon the culture. The forces of evil own it now. I simply cannot get over the fact that young people actually like rap music; not because of the beat, the dance or because it hardly qualifies as music, but because of the jaw-dropping message it conveys. It has to be the starkest and most revealing example of how deeply embedded the cultural problem is. Anybody who listens to that crap for any reason other than to refute it can’t help but be a loss to civilization.
Very good advice, Roger.
The other suggestion would be to like and to listen to your enemy. Now, I don’t mean the hopelessly corrupt who exist on all parts of the political spectrum. I mean those who recognize that objective truth exists and that there is some force that transcends the power of the state that requires us to look out for and to respect each other.
Islam was the enemy of Jewish and Christian society for 1400 years. Your comment Roger, seems to imply that before the Enlightenment these peoples and their societies werent worth defending from the predations of Islam and it’s adherents. They were.
But I find political conversions to be fascinating. There seem to be more Left to Conservative conversions perhaps due to life experience overcoming Leftwing indoctrination. But Conservative to Left conversions are fascinating as well.
But as to how to change viewpoints and societal beliefs…the answer is via the education system and cultural/media. Youve got to teach the kids. This is what the Left did, and is why the Establishment and Center (public opinion) has shifted so far Left, where now rather mundane Classically Liberal Christians are now labeled “far Right extremists.”
Liberals with an open mind will eventually become conservatives. Liberals with closed minds will die liberals. Unfortunately, most have closed minds.
I also made a change, but on a different axis. I was always a conservative – my first vote was for Nixon and I volunteered for VietNam. But… when young I was socially liberal. Over time I became socially conservative, and eventually (long after I was strongly pro-life) re-discovered Christianity, becoming “religious right”.
But a comment on why it’s hard for many to change…
One distinguishing characteristic of progressives vs conservatives is very fundamental: progressives believe (somewhere, if you dig deep enough) in the perfectibility of man and the blank slate theory of psychology. Conservatives believe in unchanging human nature and (religious or not) something akin to “original sin.”
Hence progressives are always out to “fix” things and “improve” things by giving more and more power to government (which they imagine will be run by semi-perfected enlightened experts). Conservatives are rightly suspicious of this.
When someone has a strong belief in this area (and most do, whether they have thought it through or not), it’s hard for them to change. It’s especially strong if they don’t understand this basis of their philosophy.
Roger, I don’t know how that area affected your own change.
So many of today’s liberals have been exposed and indoctrinated from their earliest years by the liberal teaching establishment, it’s a minor miracle if they ever see anything from the conservative point of view much less change. I am reminded of a scene from Dr. Zhivago when Dr. Zhivago meets Lara’s daughter and she shows the doctor a drawing of the czar looking like the devil. When Zhivago questions her, “What if the czar didn’t know what he was doing was evil?” Her reply was, “Well, he should have.” Child logic soon to become adult logic.
That’s how people become brainwashed. Start teaching them at an early, impressionable age so to them, it’s a natural and correct thing to do. My wife teaches 8th grade English and she comes home almost every day shaking her head. She says it’s very difficult to “love” children when they have been so obviously “twisted” in their views.
We do everything we possibly can to try to remain positive but living in kalifornia, it’s very difficult to do so. This state is more like an alien planet from what is was like during the 50′s; the time I was in grammar school. This place scares me now (my parents as well as my sister and I were born here), violent home invasions are happening with alarming regularity. As soon as my wife retires, I hope to convince her that we need to move the hell away from here.
No, none of the great divider’s 23 proclamations will have any effect in kalifornia other than making the law abiding citizen less safe. The gang bangers and cartels are well armed and our %#*&@$# governor, through his parties campaign efforts, got the teeth pulled out of our landmark 3 strikes law and approximately 9,000 “upstanding” criminals are to be released from prison because their third strike wasn’t violent, regardless of what the first two were.
Lovely.
If you want to win people over with this media outlet you have to maintain a high standard for the content. Get intelligent writers. This means more people like Michael Totten (who left) and fewer people like Bryan Preston who is like a caricature of a bozo right winger. He’s the type of Republican that liberals point to and say, “see I told you they were stupid- read what this guy has to say.” Seems like his writing is inspired by the bumper stickers he sees in the parking lot of the Lakewood Church as he’s walking in to see Joel Osteen. Let’s have more Charles Krauthammer-type wit and less Sean Hannity-type blah blah blah.
Government Scientist Fired for Telling the Truth
The Department of Interior is misleading the public and purging scientists who don’t go along with an increasingly radical green agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edwm3YFGO-4&feature=youtu.be