posted
I think I've said something about this here before, but this seems like a good time to bring it up again.
In the past several months there has been an upswing in Democrats (and some of their interest groups) accusing Republicans of being "divisive". More generally, I encounter a large number of liberal posters (more elsewhere than here) accusing conservatives of being invariably intolerant and incapable of rational discourse. (Of course, if I knew of nowhere else, Hatrack would still disprove that as a universal; there's plenty of civil discourse here, though I see occasional trolls.)
First, I'd really like to know what "divisive" means in this context. What exactly is divisive about conservative positions that isn't divisive about their liberal opposites? ("Pro-life":divisive::"pro-choice":unifying?) And is it always bad to be divisive? Last I recall, racial civil rights was one of the most divisive issues in the country; we fought a five-year war over it. I can't think of anyone I'd want to be around who thinks the division wasn't worth it.
More generally, I'm curious as to how the idea got started that conservatives are behind today's vitriolic level of discussion. Yes, I see plenty of Rush Limbaughs out there. And, for the most part, liberal talking-head types seem fairly cool-headed and even-handed--often to the point of smarmy condescension, but you can't have everything. But the division appears nearly reversed below the level of public figure. Virtually every liberal blog or discussion group I have run across is filled with yes-people beating on how bad the right wing is (and on any poor conservative who happens to show up looking for dialogue). I have yet to find any conservative discussion board not overrun by vehemently angry liberals bent on denouncing the proprietor as an evil theocrat or the like. And yet when I broach the subject, most often the result is a flame attack--accusing me of being an intolerant bigot who can't acknowledge other opinions!
This site (and to a lesser degree, Ornery) are much less polarized--but seems to be very much an exception to the rule. I don't think it's purely an internet phenomenon, either; I rarely encounter it in private discussion, but see it all the time in letters to the editor and in editorials by "lesser lights" (so to speak).
I don't expect liberals to be inhumanly perfect, but I seriously question their judgement on what constitutes fairness.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make so many blanket generalizations here, about liberals -- by using examples that a lot of us can neither verify or relate to. You're setting up terms that would be impossible to argue against. (Anecdotal evidence smearing liberals isn't exactly a fair beginning to the question you're asking.)
I wonder if you could put the question(s) in clearer terms, for the sake this discussion?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any point of view that isn't in total agreement with what the majority of Republican politicians want to do is labeled as divisive and "an attack on the US in a time of war". Now you're whining because liberals don't agree?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can find some concrete examples, if that's what you're asking. (For the moment, I need to get some sleep, so it will have to wait a while.) If you mean, can I start a statistical study, I suppose it would be possible, but far from easy, and I don't know of anyone who has conducted one.
I'll get back to you later tonight, when I wake up, or tomorrow after I get back from work, and we'll see what we can work out.
(edit) Aspectre, I have never made such a comment (though I hear them frequently) and am not referring to them. In case you've forgotten, I'm no longer in favor of the war myself.
More frequently, aside from the questionable but fairly tame "divisive" epithet, I hear people accusing conservatives or Republicans of being "hypocrites", "theocrats", "Nazis" (or "fascists"), "closed-minded", "intolerant", "bigots", "hate-filled", and the like. You, aspectre, may agree with these descriptors, but at the very minimum I cannot see that they would constitute a logical argument.
When I return, I will do my darndest to bring with me something to illustrate what I am talking about as even-handedly as possible.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, TL...I'm not trying to frustrate you, or to smear liberals. I honestly do not have a great deal of time at the moment.
I want to understand why people to my left on the political spectrum accuse "right-wingers" of being intolerant and having no ideas, but only hatred, when they themselves proceed to attack us with bitter words and cast aspersions on our motives. And I want to understand why it continues--how they get away with it without repelling their audience.
Perhaps I should have waited until a better time. For the moment, let me link to a particular discussion. Fred himself is relatively cool-headed, especially in this post, but continue reading and watch the argument rapidly degenerate. Slacktivist example
More can be seen elsewhere on the blog, but I confess to not returning following the last post I made on the quoted thread, as well as to being very angry when I made it. And yes, this is only one example, so you can feel free to accuse me of using anecdotal evidence. I know of no studies that have been done; if I did, I would certainly read and add them here.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The word "liberal" has been twisted by Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk to mean something that it doesn't mean, that it never meant. When many conservatives use the word "liberal" now they mean it as an abasement. They mean it as an insult. (It was Limbaugh, remember, who started calling liberals "Nazis," and making a lot of comparisons between Bill Clinton and Adolf Hitler back in the early '90's -- not in terms of Clinton killing Jews or anything -- but in terms of connecting what he referred to as Clinton's "Socialist" policies with the platform of the Nazi party.)
The reaction of some liberals -- now on the defensive and trying to find the upper ground, is to respond in kind -- by trying to make the word "conservative" mean something it doesn't mean. Probably a better strategy would be to try to reclaim the meaning of the word "liberal."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Understand, though, that this level of discourse *started* with the Ditto-head movement. And that when Liberals (with a capital "L" -- thank you, Rush) show up to rail against "Conservative Nazis" it is as a reaction to what has already been done to them. An irrational reaction, and not a very helpful reaction, but a reaction just the same.
They call conservatives divisive without taking the same responsibility for themselves because, basically, "conservatives started it."
(Which I agree with, for the record.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though this is off topic for the thread, I have to say it. Rush Limbaugh is disgusting. I don't understand how anyone can listen to that guy for more than 5 minutes without realizing that he has nothing to say. I'm a conservative, and I can't stand the man. Feel free to disagree!
That being said, both sides call the other side divisive, which simply leads me to believe there is division. (I know, I'm really going out on a limb here) I don't think that the debates have become much more heated over the last few years, and I didn't pay attention to them before about 1999 when I was 15. Neither side is doing much of anything to find a middle ground. Sad? Yes, but I doubt it will go on forever. At some point someone always comes along who can reconcile the people, or else the people split apart forever.
quote:What exactly is divisive about conservative positions that isn't divisive about their liberal opposites?
I don't think it's a complaint about the positions, in most cases, but rather the methods. In general -- and we've discussed this before on these boards -- conservative representatives of the media tend to be more abrasive, divisive, and dismissive than their liberal counterparts.
I can't speak to the "common man" and other anecdotal examples, because I try to avoid drooling activists in my own life and am consequently unlikely to encounter any of any political persuasion outside the media. That said, I think we can all agree that, whoever is to blame, political discourse in this country has lingered in the gutter. But, then, it's been there before; at least we're no longer engaging in fistfights in the Capitol Dome.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberals don't write books called 100 people who are screwing upAmerica (and Al Franken is Number #34) or How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) or Treason: Liberal Treachery....
Conservatives seem to be out to villify liberals. They've tried (successfully I think) to turn liberal into a pejorative term. They call liberals traitors all the time and are proud of it.
Liberals on the other hand like Michael Moore and Al Franken, easily two of the most recognized leftist names, don't write about the evils of the conservative party (even Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them wasn't a call to the masses to HATE the conservatives, or to tall them evil destructive forces hellbent on ruining American on purpose). They don't call Conservatives traitors. Michael Moore for the most part writes social commentary, or at least he used to until the right turned him into the left's poster boy for extremism.
The Right claims that the Left has no ideas of their own, and then when the Left actually offers ideas, the Right just claims they are being purposely divisive and are playing politics. They are dismissive, and act like Democrats are there just to create impediments to government, whereas Liberals often try to work across the aisle with Republicans, such as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton (Yes! HILLARY CLINTON!). It's a testament to how driven the smear campaign on the right is, that they've tried to paint Hillary as a communist ultra liberal when actually she's rather centrist, and is so at odds with her own party that they're running a couple Democrats against her in her senate race.
I think the Right realizes they aren't following the stated ideals of their party. They've overseen the biggest enlargement of the Federal Government since the New Deal, and are racking up record deficits and spiraling the debt out of control. And this, done with protest only from the LEFT. I think they realize that eventually this is going to come back and bite them in the butt, so they strike out at the left reflexively, knowing that their base will appreciate that, and might ignore the fact that they are more or less betraying the ideals of the party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how the left is vilifying the Right here in this very post. I don't see, Mabus, how asking a question like you have is going to answer your question. Obviously both sides disagree that they are the ones who are divisive. I, on the other hand, believe that the Left started it during the the 60s and 70s; although it has been going on to a degree since at least the 30s by the Democratic Party.
Side note: if Hillary and Obama are the centrist of the Democratic Party, I pray to God the Democrats never come back to power.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think it's funny that, if we think about it, people call each other "divisive" when someone's opinion does not agree with their own. I've never fully understood why people get SO worked up because others disagree with their views, especially when that disagreement won't change anything in their life.
What's funny is I started a thread a while back on a similar subject and, guess what? I started bickering with others on differences of opinion. I had to laugh at my own irony.
I do think the very nature of being divisive––that is, having the freedom to express differences of opinion––is a privilege we forget is a relatively recent construct (at least in the U.S.). There was a time when threads such as this would have led to a good half of us being hunted down and led to the chopping block.
Now that block is stern rebuttals by others equally free to trash our opinion. Sometimes it hurts just as bad, but there's a lot less mess.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't see you villifying the Right in your post, however, if you meant in this thread then I still don't see it. My post, and others, have been laments of Right wing villification of the Left, even in my post there wasn't a villification of the right, I just disapprove of their tactics, and the direction they are leading this country. I don't however think they are evil, just that they are wrong, and I don't think that they are trying to ruin the country, they just want to remake large portions of it in their image. And as of late, they don't seem to be too concerned about the law.
And please Occasional, in the 30's and 40's there barely even was a Republican party. And as for villification of the Right during the 60's and 70's, those were the people supporting state instituted racism, so I think a little villification was warranted, and certainly earned.
And by the way, I LOVE it when the Right deflects criticism by saying "the Democrats started it." Apparently the excuses of a six year old are perfectly acceptable for an American political party in control of all three branches of government. Personally I think it's pathetic.
And show me where Obama and Hillary are extreme liberals? What exactly is your problem with them? Besides, if the Republicans stay in power much longer, they may not be much for the Democrats to fight for control of.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, my husband is leaving academia partly because of how intemperate his colleagues and contemporaries have become about politics. Conservative and even moderates academics are afraid to voice their opinions because it can have very negative effects on their careers - it's pretty much a given that unless you agree with liberal political views or keep you mouth shut, you won't get tenure.
I think that Michael Moore and Al Franken are very vitriolic.
quote:Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet….in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.
-Michael Moore during a speech in Germany
quote:I want Bush paraded in handcuffs outside of a police house as a common criminal because I don’t know if there’s a greater crime than taking people to war based on a lie. I’ve never seen anything like Bush and his people. They truly hate our Constitution, our rights and our liberties. They have no shame in fighting for their corporate sponsors.
-Michael Moore in The Mirror
In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Al Franken accuses the Republican party of being racist (pp. 256-257) and refers to them as "stupid bastards" (p. 354). On page 107, he declares, "I F---ing Hate Those Right-Wing M------F-----!" In Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, he states that the Republican party is "in the thrall of Lucifer" (p. 254).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think he was saying that the "liberals started it" in response to TL's claim that the "conservatives started it." So it would seem that both sides resort to the six-year old response when questioned.
posted
For the record, I was trying to objectively decipher the motives of the kind of liberals Mabus is asking about.
Most liberals don't spew hatred at all -- but those that do? Their position is that conservatives started it.
I don't agree with the defensive and offensive tactics of certain people -- but it *does* seem to me that the CURRENT cycle of viciousness was started by the whole Ditto-head thing back in the early '90's.
Of course in the past there've been other such cycles.
posted
So far as Michael Moore goes, like I said, he wasn't really that bad until the Republicans started propping him up with their rhetoric, then he went a little nutty. But no one listens to him, other than the extreme left, but no one really listens to them. Most liberals I talk to think he's a blowhard who does more harm than good to the party.
As for Al Franken, he's a comedian more than a political figure. And regardless, throughout all of Franken's words he is displaying his own personal feelings towards the right, he doesn't like them and he says so. Coulter more or less advocates hatred of the left, then breaks down her reasons as to why everyone should hate them, why they are the biggest evil to ever face America, and how to oust them.
From Treason, page 1: "Liberals have a preternaural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The left's obsession with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World savages all flow from this subversive goal."
Later she compared liberals to terrorists and Fidel Castro. I'd call that worse than simply saying "I hate Conservatives."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Mrs. M, your husband can come to Purdue. One of our professors was just named one of the top 100 most dangerous academics in America because he's too liberal.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mabus: IMore frequently, aside from the questionable but fairly tame "divisive" epithet, I hear people accusing conservatives or Republicans of being "hypocrites", "theocrats", "Nazis" (or "fascists"), "closed-minded", "intolerant", "bigots", "hate-filled", and the like. You, aspectre, may agree with these descriptors, but at the very minimum I cannot see that they would constitute a logical argument.
some hypocritical behavior: (please dont take this as me being a proponent of abortion, as I am definitely pro-life, i jsuthappen to be pro all life) A republican would rather save an unborn child than a born child. They want any child who is pregnant to ask her parents for permission for an abortion. So if a 14 year old is raped and becomes pregnant, she then has to get permission from her father to have an abortion, the father will then beat the crap out of her for being a "whore" and she and the baby will die from the injuries. they ahve not saved one life they have lost two.
intolerant: meaning not tolerant of others beliefs am I correct? most republicans jump on me much sooner than I jump on them for their beliefs, I am happy they have their beliefs, why cant they be happy I have mine?
Bigot: the president and christian right speak for themselves on this one with their stance on gay marriage.
The words are simply being used to describe the qualities that are there.
I am somewhat of a hypocrite.... I do not believe in the death penalty yet I would take someones life if they hurt my children. By definition this makes me a hypocrite. It also makes me immoral as I believe that it immoral to take another life for any reason. (including the unborn)
Posts: 63 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both the extreme ends of liberals and conservatives are divisive. The big difference is that conservatives publish their divisiveness in the media to a much greater degree.
It is divisive when you attempt to argue that your opponents only believe what they do because your opponents are idiots. There are conservative pundits using this line of argument about liberals on TV and radio all the time - from O'Reilly to Ann Coulter. They have their own shows on television news networks (especially Fox News), on the radio, etc. There exists many liberals who act in the same way, but their media presence is limited more to blogs or less visible outlets.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
EDIT: I hadn't ever read the World Watch thing before. Now I have. Wow. There really is a list of Dangerous Academics. It's a good thing they don't do the same thing for Canada O.o. I bet some people watch us all with narrowed and suspicious eyes.
posted
That makes no sense. I can see someone being dangerous for saying, "Let's run the country the way Mao ran China and torture people into agreeing with us." but people being dangerous for being liberal? Makes no sense. You need both sides, not just one with all the strength. That only weakens society instead of making it better.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how academics can be all that dangerous. It's their ideas that can be dangerous - and usually they are only dangerous insofar as they appear true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the argument is that these dangerous academics are imparting their dangerous ideas on impressionable youth, brainwashing them with their liberal crazy, instead of giving them a wholesome non-partisan education.
Politics rarely comes up in my classes, even the history classes, which I'd think, other than flat out Poli-sci classes you'd find the most political driven subject matter. Even in the poli-sci classes there wasn't that much direct partisan leaning. Maybe I need to be going to an Ivy League east coast liberal thinking school to get that? I dunno. But I don't really see what all the fuss is about. College is supposed to be about new experiences, seeing new points of view, and really about challenging your views on life. As hard as the right is trying to indoctrinate the youth of the nation with their ways of thinking, I'm surprised quite frankly that they are so threatened by 100 professors across America. Are conservative views so fragile?
Ann Coulter said the best way to turn a liberal into a conservative is for them to "move out of their parents' house, get a job, and start paying taxes." Which doesn't really wash with the college students that work to pay their way through school and still remain liberal, but it certainly has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Makes liberals all sound like freeloaders on society, OR that they are immature. Cute at the very least.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my one shot at taking this question at baseline and trying to be fair. For what it's worth.
From where I stand, both liberals and conservatives at some levels take shots at one another that are cheap, petty, and/or out and out stupid. I don't see Mabus' division at the blog and message group level- from my limited perspective, at that level I see every bit as many conservatives calling liberals communists (and worse) as I see liberals calling conservatives fascists (and worse).
But in the root causes that lead people one way or another, the liberal causes tend to be more inclusive, and the conservative ones more exclusive.
Some potentially overly broad categorizations follow. Be aware of it, be aware that I'm aware of it.
Immigration: Conservatives tend to favor standards that insist on English speaking, stricter standards on border control, more stringent requirements for visas and remaining in the country. Liberals tend to want to incorporate all cultures into communities. (Add your favorite anecdote on levering a Kwanza or Ramadan mention into the local Christmas pageant if desired.)
Finances: Conservatives favor allowing the wealthy to keep as much of their money as possible. ("It's your money.") Liberals favor higher taxes on upper income brackets in order to finance programs that benefit those in lower brackets. To make the obvious point: there are a lot more people in the lower brackets.
Abortion, birth control: Under conservatives, no way no how is public money going to be spent on either, and preferably insurance companies won't be mandated to pay for the same, either. Whether or not you see this as a moral issue, the underlying effect is the same as the above: if you depend on insurance or the public sector to pay for such things, you're out.
Gun control: If your a conservative, you're more likely to see yourself as the potential shooter. If you're a liberal, you're more likely to see yourself as a potential shootee.
Defense: Conservatives favor a well-funded, active, high-level military, some an aggressive one. Liberals tend to favor a smaller, more local, less outwardly-focused military, preferring to spend that money on other things. Before 2001, that meant that if you weren't military, part of a defense contracting company, or a beneficiary thereof, you'd probably just as soon see the money spent in the cold war years go into something that would benefit you, too. Now, of course, everyone is more paranoid on both sides of the spectrum.
Death Penalty: Conservatives for, Liberals against. Conservatives: what if I were the victim; Liberals: what if I were the accused, especially unfairly?
In a lot of ways, the best of liberal thought is summed up as: "What if that were me?" Dependent on public help for my daughter's insulin. Coming to a country where I don't speak the language. The "have not", not the "have". How would I want to be treated? What would be "fair" to me?
Conservativism tends to assume rightness and control. I'm in the top tax bracket, or I will be. My daughter won't get pregnant out of wedlock because I raised her better than that. We're the best in the world and we're going to stay that way, and no one should question why we do things the way we do because we're the best.
A lot of modern conservative ideology seems to assume that money is a measure of not merely wealth, but moral value. Of course, if the wealthy keep their money, they'll do good and generous things with it; of course if that same money were used by the poor, they'd do foolish, bad, and wasteful things with it. Because the rich are rich because they are good, and the poor are poor because they are bad, and if they were good, they'd soon come to be rich. Conservative ideology did away with the estate tax with much this reasoning.
Liberals want to alleviate suffering. Sometimes they over-extend themselves; sometimes their ideas are too broad, sometimes some would argue the targets of their largesse are undeserving. It's a valid question if liberalism taken to its extreme would create utopia or merely bankrupt the system. But for those without, and those who used to be, or identify with them, the ideology often remains the more attractive.
Now, modern liberals often fall short of the loftier, inclusive ideas, in particular the "condescending" tone that's been mentioned. In particular, southerners, the highly religious, and those without higher education are sometimes treated appallingly. It should be noted, however, that there are still members of all three groups who would describe themselves as liberals. And even at their worst, these reactions are somewhat of the "missionary without a clue" type: "Oh, we just want to do what's best for the ignorant savages."
I do need to make one final comment about something said above: the Franken quote only sounds bad taken out of context. He's joking. Honest. I don't have the book in front of me, but he basically says, "I'm not here to make unprovoked attacks on Republicans. No, I'm saving that for my next book...
quote:I F---ing Hate Those Right-Wing M------F-----!"
posted
List of "dangerous academics" aside, I can tell you, as the wife of a professor and someone who lived in faculty housing (i.e. - was surrounded by academics), that liberals are an outspoken majority in academia and conservatives are a persecuted minority. It's particularly bad in poli sci and philosophy - papers that address conservative issues without castigating them (let alone supporting them) never get chosen for publication and you cannot get tenure without publication. Professors who are Republicans treat it like a dirty skeleton in their closets, which I think is sad. It's a very oppressive atmosphere, which is such a shame.
Anyhow, I think The Simpsons offered very astute political commentary in the episode where Bart gets an elephant. Stampy (the elephant) runs amok through political conventions and we see the following signs:
In the Republican convention: "We want what's worst for everyone" and "We're just plain evil."
In the Democratic convention: "We hate life, and ourselves" and "We can't govern."
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
**DELETE ME** Just ignore me, and go about your posting, sorry if this hijacked the thread. I hate political talk. I was actually here looking for more info on Treason, and I stumbled on this thread. It reminded me of an office co-worker.
posted
I don't think circular logic means what you think it means, Tinomen.
Also, from Mabus's first post:
quote:In the past several months there has been an upswing in Democrats (and some of their interest groups) accusing Republicans of being "divisive".
quote:I have yet to find any conservative discussion board not overrun by vehemently angry liberals bent on denouncing the proprietor as an evil theocrat or the like. And yet when I broach the subject, most often the result is a flame attack--accusing me of being an intolerant bigot who can't acknowledge other opinions!
A) TInomen, would you, or would you not take take offense if I said Hatrack was being overrun by conservatives? Because I know of a few people who likely would, and I couldn't blame them.
B) When TL asked, "do you have a real question," what he was doing, I think, was challenging Mabus on some of his assumptions. I read Mabus's first post as basically saying, "Liberals call conservatives divisive, why do you think that is? Because on a lot of other forums, it's the liberals who are the divisive ones." I thought that TL was hinting to Mabus that maybe there are some other questions that need to be answered first.
I don't doubt that Mabus is genuinely curious about what he's asking, but the way in which he asked about it, as well as his premises, are what's being objected to.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:some hypocritical behavior: (please dont take this as me being a proponent of abortion, as I am definitely pro-life, i jsuthappen to be pro all life) A republican would rather save an unborn child than a born child. They want any child who is pregnant to ask her parents for permission for an abortion. So if a 14 year old is raped and becomes pregnant, she then has to get permission from her father to have an abortion, the father will then beat the crap out of her for being a "whore" and she and the baby will die from the injuries. they ahve not saved one life they have lost two.
Wow.
Okay, not so much vitriol as propaganda.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
**DELETE ME** I am lazy, so I will bow out of this thread. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Tinomen, you can delete your own posts. And it looks as though I offended you; I apologize. (I was gone to work last night, so I don't know what you said before your posts were edited.)
I'm glad to see that either some people understood me better than TL, or my later posts cleared things up.
Lyrhawn, I don't know if conservative beliefs are fragile. I do know that it is difficult to hold to your beliefs when people in a position over you, and presumptively better educated/more intelligent than you, ridicule you for holding them. I'm given to understand that it was once the other way around--until the 60s, universities were bastions of stodgy, fuddy-duddy conservativism. One presumes that this persisted as long as it did because the professors had real influence over their students.
As for the "move out" comment--you're right. We do see liberals--sometimes--as people who want the government to take care of their every need. This may be something of an exaggeration, but it does, after all, derive from your policies. (FWIW, I finally came to the conclusion last night that, if people really want their bread and circuses, we may as well raise taxes to pay for them. I believe that this will lead to tax riots within four years of its inception, but at least we will then have some leverage to keep the budget balanced with. Better to have high taxes and high services than low taxes and high services, if those are our options.)
I found Sterling's comments to be the most insightful (of a mostly insightful, but rather long, lot), so I think I will focus on them--thirty posts is a lot to come back to in one thread.
Sterling, I think the inclusiveness of liberals makes the situation more puzzling, not less. It means that we, virtually alone, are targets for liberal ire. I acknowledge that there are people who will find my beliefs problematic; I apologize for it sometimes, but I don't usually change for their sake, because I base my beliefs on higher principles (as I see them). I can be expected, on some level, to offend some people, whether I mean to or not, because I hold that there are more important things than inclusion. But if you proclaim inclusivism as your guiding star, shouldn't it extend to everyone?
You're very much right that liberals want to alleviate suffering. It's one of their most endearing traits, and every now and then it lures me away to one of their positions. But it drives me crazy that they have so much trouble imagining that a person can sometimes cause his own suffering by his own actions. To suggest it is one of the most likely ways to induce a torrent of invective.
Liberals don't seem to believe in, for lack of a better word, agency. They appear to think of all people as passive victims of the world around them. If appearance and reality are the same in this case, I find that condescending as all get-out. I am a competent individual, thank you, and I surely don't need the government to balance my checkbook! But responsibility surely must mean, if it means anything, that some poor people are poor because of their own actions, and some rich people have worked hard and deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. When I encounter a wealthy parasite--of whom there are plenty--I sometimes find myself morphing into a Democrat. The power to tax is the power to destroy--so destroy that greedy louse! Maybe I differ from some Republicans in believing not that meritocracy is working, but that it can work. I revile people who interfere with its workings--greedy people whether rich or poor.
The point of all this is to say, I'm open to discussion of reasonable plans. I'm a Republican out of respect for the meritocratic ideal (in part), and I'm willing to dialogue with Democrats who want to make that ideal work better, or supplement it with other forms of benevolence. But they've become extraordinarily hard to find. Slacktivist, or to take a different kind of site, The New Republic, are very moderate sorts of liberal. I applaud the primary authors more than not. But I rarely get their attention, and meanwhile extremists are rallying round the sites and columns demanding that they "shape up". If I mention meritocracy, I am "hoping to dance on the backs of the bruised". If I suggest that abortion is anything less than desirable, I am a "Christo-totalitarian theocratic fascist".
So far, Hatrack, and to a lesser extent, Ornery, have been shining beacons of real discussion. I salute them. And I keep coming back, which I see as worth more than any salute. But a maelstrom of vicious partisanship rages all around them. Dangerous as the right wing can be, it at least tends to be aware of when it's being intolerant. The left, much more often, appears to see no evil in itself. That strikes me as all the more dangerous.
And now I've gone on long enough and should let others respond.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think a lot of people want the government to provide every need for them, but, we need middle ground. It is not unreasonable to pay into the system and during a time of need such as unemployment to be able to plug into the system we paid into. It is unfair for the middle class to pay most of the taxes to benefit a small percentage of the population who is already entirely too wealthy. Historically speaking this has caused trouble. We do need solid conservative values, but we also need enough freedom to shift and change, otherwise we wouldn't have made all the progress we need to make society even better.
The main problem with a lot of liberals is represented in this book I read called Born in Sin where these liberal types assumed that all black people were on welfare or had missing fathers and therefore were at risk without looking at the whole entire picture. Both sides have a problem with the whole picture and can only see a part of it. Both sides want too much division and can care less about looking at the facts outside the lense of a specific set of believes and that is what leads to problems whether it's rigid feminists who believe that all men are part of the patriarchy even if they are poor and struggling or that all men are somehow enemies despite the fact that they are heterosexual or rigid conservatives caught in a Victorian mindset of we are rich because we deserve it and not because they earned their money STILL even to this day off the labours of other exploited people. Things will never change unless people learn, which is why I am tired of these contant debates that use the same statements word for word over EVERY SINGLE ISSUE...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservatives are more likely to believe that their opponents are evil, whereas Liberals are more likely to believe that their opponents are stupid.
That is, both sides tend to believe that the leadership of the opposition is evil, but when it comes to the average person, the observation in the first paragraph seems to hold true.
Most people don't like to be thought evil, but when it's your "enemies" who think you're evil, it at least isn't too surprising. But nobody likes to be thought stupid, especially when you're actually quite bright, or when you would like to have a discussion with someone.
When it comes to dialogue, the least productive attitude is that the only way anybody could think the way your opponent does is if they are stupid, uneducated, or dishonest.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But no one listens to him, other than the extreme left, but no one really listens to them.
First, my "Pat Robertson" reply. Simply stating that someone doesn't represent the views of a lot of liberals doesn't make it so. How much money did Faranheit 9/11 make? How much does he pull in per lecture (I know it's at least $20,00 and he's booked pretty solid, mainly to college campuses). You may not like what he says, but there are certainly a lot of people who pay to listen to him say it.
Second, my "pot calling the kettle black" reply. Do you think anybody but the nutty, extreme right listens to Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest? Do you honestly believe that they are more representative of their party's views than Franken and Moore are of the Democrats? Because I think that's just silly.
There are demogogues in both parties. There always have been, but unfortunately we live in an age where the people who scream the loudest are the ones who get heard. That's why (IMO) party politics suddenly feel so "divisive." No longer are the shrill cries of nut-jobs muffled by the warm blanket of print media. Now it's all the time, in your face, attention grabbing visual, visceral media.
Hmm. Here's a thesis: while there are demogogues on both sides of the political divide, they generally employ different tactics. While conservative idealogues mainly employ direct aggression, liberal idealogues rely on snideness and condescension.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off I think that while there a number of radical right wingers and left wingers who are out there on there soap boxes screaming at the other side I also feel that the majority of the American people find themselves somewhere in the middle. Its just that due to there middle stature they feel no need to scream and jump up and down so they arent heard.
The American system is not great but it does work. This is due to the balance we find in the American system. We need both the liberals and the conservetives in order to have a healthy working system. THis is why, even though I consider myself atleast a conservative if not a republican, I find it very frightening that one party controlls all three branches of government. It seems that it would be too easy for the wrong people to just take over.
As to issues I see myself swinging much more to the conservative side than the liberal. One issue that has been brought up a lot in this thread is the idea of government taking care of people vs. people taking care of themselves. I agree with the take care of selves approach because if everyone took care of themselves and there immediate family than the world would be a better place. You hear the story of the great caring poloticion who doesnt even know his own family. Its things like that that make me sad.
I think the biggest problem that the democrats have right now is a lack of good leadership and they need to take a stand. The democratic party never seems to know right where it stands. They dont really seem to have a strong platform. In the 2004 election Kerry seemed to run on the platform of "Bush bad Kerry good." Then people wonder why he lost the election. The democrats need to get some powerful leaders who are willing to stand up and just say "this is what i believe in and the rest of you be damned" if they ever want to get into power.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orange Penguin, though I agree with you somewhat about the notion of problems with one party controlling all three of the federal government branches....
First, Republicans still don't control the Supreme Court. At best, we have a small and very unstable majority. (Perhaps this is for the best, in the long run--a Court neither party can count on.) Ideally, of course, the Court would have nothing to do with political parties, but then, that's what they said about the president. It just took longer for the change to happen.
Second, uncomfortable though it makes me (especially with Alito on, after what he's said about the unitary executive), I had about concluded that the only way ever to shift the Court to the right would be to do so now, while the Repubs control the other two branches. Clearly a Democratic president will do his best to select liberal candidates, and the way the Senate has been lately, I'm not sure the Democrats will ever let anyone through who doesn't meet their criteria, if they can help it. I fully expect the balance to shift in either '06 or '08; indeed, I'm not sure the Republican party can survive what's coming.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever else it may have been, the Iraq War has been politically disastrous. Bush&Co's reputation is in the toilet, the Republican Congress is seen as a bunch of corrupt yes-men, the national debt is looming because no one can get a handle on entitlements, oil prices are through the roof.... You name it. The time is ripe for a Democratic landslide, and after this fiasco it's hard to imagine a message the Republicans can come up with that will sustain them. Things are so bad, my crackpot-survivalist-fundie boss at Cracker Barrel thinks the war was a mistake. I don't know if anything can make him vote Democrat, but I know I will, if only to get rid of the money-grubbers in Congress. Maybe I'll be kicking myself all the way to the poorhouse--or nuclear apocalypse--but I don't see that I have a choice.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're right, the loudmouths on both sides are the minority opinion, but still get widely listened to by all. Still, I maintain that when one side calls the other traitors, and people out to purposeless wreck the country because they literally HATE America, and that compares them with terrorists...that is a whole lot worse than the other side calling them stupid. Given what they are saying, I'd say that IS pretty stupid.
Second, penguin -
I'm all for the "do it yourself" method too, but not everyone gets that chance. It's fair to say, that more or less, anyone who tries hard enough can improve their position in this country, regardless of where you started out. But for those who start at the extreme bottom, I think it's fair to give them a leg up. A helping hand isn't the same thing as handing everything to them.
Next, the Democratic party, especially since the defeat of Kerry, has been standing up for itself rather nicely. The problem, is that the Republicans have done such a fantastic job of painting the Democrats as weak, that even when they stand up for something, the Republicans can slap them right back down and call them divisive and unhelpful, because their stand, and their ideas are clearly just there to get in the way of the process. After all, that's all a Democrat is good for isn't it? To get in the way of the people who REALLY have the good ideas.
Democrats took a stand when Justices were being nominated, they took a stand on the budget, they took a stand on the last couple war appropriations bills, they've taken a stand on every major issue in the last year, but still the Republicans paint them as do-nothing who are merely trying to get in the way of the process.
Their success has nothing to do with taking a stand. They need to take a page out of the Republican playbook and retool their message. It isn't what they have to say, it's how they say it. They need to stop being apologetic about religion, they ARE religious people, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. I know Kerry didn't follow all the rules of the belief that he says he follows. But neither does Bush, for all his caterwalling about it. Neither does Cheney, or Frist, or a lot of them. It's a ridiculous argument to say that Democrats aren't religious, and are merely trying to make themselves LOOK religious. Their problem is they are used to running secular campaigns, and that doesn't fly with everyone anymore.
Third, Mabus -
The Republican party will survive in 06 and 08. But starting later this year, the President ceases to matter really. The best years for a President are supposed to be the first two years of his second term, where he has the political capital and power to make things happen and create new policy initiatives. Sadly, he wasted all his capital before his second term even started. ALL of his domestic agendas have either passed and then failed, or have failed to even get off the ground. Domestically, this president is a failure, and that WILL come up in the next presidential election, and it WILL hurt the Republican running, because so many of them cloaked themselves in his coat tails for the last six years.
Republicans may have a strong new world view, and they might even think they are doing a good job and remaking the world in their image, but for the last few years, Republicans have been horrible at governing this nation. They haven't solved ANY problems, even their energy bill was largely a joke that won't get anything done for years and years, if then. They've either underfunded Bush's good ideas, or ignored them. And not Bush just looks like a toothless tiger growling at the wind. Oh, and by the way, if you want to see someone be condescending and act like everyone else has stupid, have you EVER seen the President speak in public? That's all he does.
Republicans will lose seats in the Congress and in the Senate in the midterms because they have lost touch with domestic policy. Democrats will offer up a new plan. They will talk about balancing the budget, about immigration, about education and a host of other issues that the Republicans keep trying to sweep under a giant rug that says "Iraq" on it. Recent polling data shows that the people are now choosing DEMOCRATS on issues like homeland security and the war in Iraq. Republicans have already gotten all the play out of those issues that they can.
I don't know if it will swing power all the way over to the Democrats, but it almost doesn't matter. An emboldened Democratic party, newly empowered and finally with a voice will hammer Bush and the Republicans for the next year until the Presidential races start, and they'll just pour on the heat then. Democratic victory isn't assured, but the Republicans sure are making it easy for them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mabus: Whatever else it may have been, the Iraq War has been politically disastrous. Bush&Co's reputation is in the toilet, the Republican Congress is seen as a bunch of corrupt yes-men, the national debt is looming because no one can get a handle on entitlements, oil prices are through the roof.... You name it. The time is ripe for a Democratic landslide, and after this fiasco it's hard to imagine a message the Republicans can come up with that will sustain them. Things are so bad, my crackpot-survivalist-fundie boss at Cracker Barrel thinks the war was a mistake. I don't know if anything can make him vote Democrat, but I know I will, if only to get rid of the money-grubbers in Congress. Maybe I'll be kicking myself all the way to the poorhouse--or nuclear apocalypse--but I don't see that I have a choice.
Interesting choice of words. With the way the Republicans have been running the government, I'd say you're much more likely to be in the poorhouse with them and their out of control spending, than with a fiscally responsible Democrat.
And where did you even come up with nuclear apocalypse? Bush and his team are the ones picking fights everywhere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
