This is pretty funny. And I agree that this comment is bizarre:

I admit it’s humorous but it’s not really a good nickname for Obama since Ahmadinejad is a far right conservative.

It’s a good demonstration of how useless the phrase “right wing” is for political discourse. What in the world does this mean? That Ahmadinejad wants lower taxes? Smaller government? Choice in public schools? No gun control?


28 thoughts on “Obamadinejad”

  1. When a Progressive Leftist calls a totalitarian thug like Ahmadinejad “right wing”, what they are really saying is “we realize that this guy is really, really bad, but we approve of his policies and he has the same goals that we do.”

  2. I second Raoul. “Right-wing” is essentially code for “anyone we (on the proglodyte Left)don’t want to be associated with.”

    If they really disapproved of him they’d call him “RAAAAACIST.”

  3. Pournell Political Axes
    I’d say Ahmadinejad is in-or-near the circle “Fascists” or perhaps the one labeled “Nazis”. Obama is in the circle labeled “State Worship”. When asked about governmental spending waste one day last March, his response was “Spending is good, next?”

  4. Playing devil’s advocate: I’m.a.nut.job. and christians are both considered right wing because they both want to impose their religious views on others (all christians that are not marxist like liberation theologists of course.)

  5. Going along with Ken…

    I’m a nut job hates jews and gays; ergo he’s right wing to progressives, who don’t remember the 1920’s and 30’s.

  6. Ken,
    I’m still looking for those Right-Wing Christians who want that. Being of similar mind, I’d like to join, but try as I might, I can’t find those churches!!

    So far I’ve only been able to exert my will on the family dog.

    (who BTW pees in my shoes whenever I leave him home alone)

    A little help please on where the church(es) is (are)!!

    Or were you kidding?

  7. Did everyone miss the part where I said D.A.? I know it’s difficult but I was trying to put myself in the mind of a lefty. Trying to fit multiple dimension into a single dimension is always going to be less than [fill in the blank]

  8. are environmentalists with red buttons right wing?

    Absolute fascist of the most evil kind. I don’t know if they have wings.

    (most evil because they think they are not and smile while doing the most unspeakable)

  9. Ken,
    I naturally assumed that you, acting AS the D.A., would know exactly where the churches were.

    I feel like it was an honest mistake.

    (in the future please don’t pass yourself off as an expert when you’re not. There are already resident experts-on-everything in here ,-} )

  10. in the future please don’t pass yourself off as an expert

    For the record: I am not an expert. I’ve never been a pert. I don’t have any perts for relatives. etc. I do tend to assert my opinions without all the qualifications because I assume a level of intelligence here (more so than other places.) But go ahead and walk off the couch.

  11. I just know that lefties tend to call anyone they disagree with a fascist and when they say right wing, in their mind it means a total equivalent of fascist. This is certainly a deranged viewpoint. If it’s not a total break with reality, there must be something that makes them believe that. That something can’t be too small a thing or they’d never be able to hold onto it as tightly as they do. Maybe I should go back to trying to figure out how woman think?

    God decides who christians are (“not everyone saying, lord, lord.”) I’m pretty sure those that would use force to coerce are not much different from any other fascist. I do not believe God chooses fascists to be a member of his body. When a lefty sees a fascist ‘christian’ it supports his/her belief that ‘christian’ = fascist. That’s all I’m saying. It’s an opinion, not legal testimony of a fact.

  12. “Right-wing” Ahmadinejad reminds me of a quip in a NATIONAL REVIEW editorial during the Cold War. The NY TIMES had written that “conservatives” in the Soviet Union had banned distribution of a book by Barry Goldwater. NR commented, “Hey, we’re conservative–but not THAT conservative.”

  13. I am not quite sure how social conservatives are in the same quadrant as libertarians and hippies, and in the opposite quadrant to moderate democrats.

    It seems to me that both social conservatives and moderate democrats are into moral control as opposed to moral freedom (though controlled from different collectivist sources).

    I would probably argue for different metrics, maybe collectivism on the horizontal and individual moral freedom/diversity on the vertical. This would place fascism and communism near one another – I am not sure that one need distinguish between internal (brainwashed) moral control and external physically imposed moral control in this case.

  14. Pete, you’re missing a couple of things.

    A couple centuries ago, social conservatives, as we define them today, made up the vast majority of the US citizenry. Even then, they were spread across a spectrum when it came down to how their desired social norms should be implemented. Some wanted strict government control based upon their morality. Others wanted government to stay out of it, and for society to use its own (usually less direct and softer, but not always–witness lynchings, of any type or cause) methods to deal with transgressors.

    These divides are still there, they’ve just been lumped all into the same category. That’s part of the reason I dislike cheap names like “socon”, because they imply a unity of desired end-states that simply does not exist.

    That said, to somebody on the left who views *everything* as a government concern (the belief that all which is not illegal is mandatory), the very idea that some things could ever be reasonably regulated by a loose coalition of concerned citizens with power limited by that of other concerned citizens, makes about as much sense as the “fantasy” that those same citizens could properly allocate economic resources through a “market”. So, to the left, it becomes very easy to claim that anybody who is against something personally must by definition want to make it illegal… because that’s the basis of their own internal framework.

    Myself, I’m sort of in this mixed camp. I’m socially conservative in my personal views, but I don’t necessarily want (or trust!) the government to wield the power to enforce any aspects of my personal morality (beyond such basics as “Thou shalt not murder”, etc.). It’s hard to call myself a Libertarian, though, because these days “Big-L” ones seem to be more hooked on Libertine-ism. I view that as a false dichotomy. Saving souls is the job of my preacher, my community, and myself. Protecting my Divinely-granted inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Property/the Pursuit of Happiness is the stated job of my federal government.

  15. Wodun,
    as an old hippie (still) / Tea Party member (now), I agree with that article and I totally get it. And, although I hadn’t made that connection then, I have to tell you I saw about 10 of my old HS hippie buddies at the last Tea Party rally at our State Capital.

    Most of the old hippies I know are moderate Dems. (a stance that boggles MY mind) I know this because we’ve butted heads at School Board meetings, PTSA meetings, and even family BBQs, over politics.

    But in using his condescending tone, I think, Zombie makes the mistake, which many people make, He seemingly confuses the words “hippie” and “druggie”, or “hippie” and “stoner”. And while many hippies WERE druggies or stoners back in their hippie youth, in order to live to be old hippies, that stopped years ago.

    Or else we would never have become OLD hippies.

  16. Republicans are often locally collectivist (family, religion, etc.) and globally individualistic, Democrats the inverse. I am never really sure if one is more collectivist than the other as such. Democrats and Republicans as people sort of seem to be just as dependent on others – just who they are dependent upon varies.

  17. Wodun: Zombie just re-stated Pournelle’s work (I don’t doubt accidentally), so not much there. The difference is that Pournelle uses objective, measurable (key words) definitions for his axes.

    The comment thread in Zombie’s post quickly degenerated into a “how I define conservative/rational/whatever/etc.” Well, except for the libertarians and social cons fighting. 🙂 The simple fact that people can’t agree on the mapping shows either Zombie’s work is flawed (i.e. subjective measurement or poor definition of metric) or that people just can’t get it. Or both.

    As for why Imadinnerjacket is called right-wing, it is traditional to consider Conservatives reactionary in some circles, with some small justification. Recall the term Conservatives came from France after the French Revolution. The Royalists were arguably reactionary in their mindless devotion restoring the Bourbons.

    The belief of the political reactionary focuses on a previous Golden Age to which they would return. For the Royalists, the Bourbons defined the golden age. For Italian Fascism, it was a desire to resurrect the Roman Empire. Basically it’s a highly exaggerated sense of nostalgia.

    For Imadinnerjacket, the golden age is 12-century Islam. He is, therefore, a reactionary. This allows the weak of mind the following conclusion: reactionary == conservative == right wing.

  18. The Royalists were arguably reactionary in their mindless devotion restoring the Bourbons.

    “Mindless”? Is that what kids call “self-interest” these days?

  19. Talleyrand once remarked that Bourbons had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” Sounds pretty mindless to me, not to mention their devotion to monarchy approached the same drooling fetishistic worshiping awe modern progressives have for multiculturalism and pure democracy.

    “If we give everyone the vote, everything will be fine.”
    “If we empower the return of the king, everything will be fine.” Never mind that that the aristocracy of France had become completely effete by the time of the revolution.

  20. Talleyrand once remarked that Bourbons had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” Sounds pretty mindless to me, not to mention their devotion to monarchy approached the same drooling fetishistic worshiping awe modern progressives have for multiculturalism and pure democracy.

    Why does that sound mindless to you? Keep in mind that Talleyrand was an opponent of the Bourbons and insults of that sort are dime a dozen. The only reason we remember Talleyrand’s insult is because the Bourbons couldn’t stay in power. If they had, that insult would have joined the many other empty insults in the wastebin of history.

    As for the modern progressive, somehow the awe and practice differ. Multiculturalism is great as long as you aren’t white or Asian. And pure democracy is great as long as you do as I say.

  21. Gee, I dunno, Ken. Probably because 99.9% of French aristocrats were incompetent idiots, which forces me to question the judgment of those who would return them to power?

    One of the nicest things that ever happened to England was the War of the Roses; sounds screwy, but it’s true. That pretty much gutted the English aristocracy in terms of independent power, and eventually cleared the way for the rise of the middle class to power in the 17th century.

Comments are closed.