Frank J. explains:
…with Democrats having complete control of the government, you’d think liberals could be dismissive of conservatives and be calm themselves. But no, they’re still crazy angry. Maybe even angrier than before. Biting-fingers-off angry. They’re screeching about how all the people opposed to Obama are racists and neo-Nazis and stupid, and they’re using sexual slurs against protesters and boycotting everyone who disagrees with them. They’re still nuts, but why?
See things from their point of view. The most fundamental principle liberals have is that they are all very, very smart, and everyone should listen to them. Nothing angers them more than something that challenges them to reexamine that core tenet. And that’s why they were so delighted by the election of President Obama and further wins in the House and Senate. For a moment they thought the American people had recognized liberals as their superiors and said to them: “Please! Smart people! Lead us and tell us what to do!”
Of course, it is quite obvious right now that that’s not at all what the election was about. The Republicans had been screw-ups for a while, and with the failing economy (people tend to vote for the president based on the economy, which is only a tad smarter than voting based on the weather, but whatcha gonna do?), most people just felt they couldn’t reward the Republicans with leadership again. Also, many people were tired of the hostility between conservatives and liberals (though I’m not sure why Republicans got the blame, since we could have had bipartisanship if at any time liberals had decided to stop being a bunch of screeching ninnies who mindlessly opposed whatever Bush was for). Then came along Barack Obama, who promised non-specific hope and change, and everyone was like, “Non-specific hope and change sounds like a great idea!”
There’s more.
I’m angry mainly that they’ve purloined the word “liberals.”
Good conservatives and good liberals do listen to each other. Trouble is, there is a good deal of shouting and not much listening going on on both sides. One group in DC that I am paying attention to — and urging liberals with whom I am acquainted to do so also — is the New America Foundation. They, believe it or not, say things critical of business. They provide fora for such topics as “Love the work — hate the job” which was a criticism of bad management run amuck.
Liberals and conservatives — at least some of them — are also coming together criticizing the drug war. When you get Walter Cronkite and William F. Buckley Jr. on the same side — both urging us to drop that disaster — that’s important news.
Last night at a St. Mark’s Episcopal Church meeting (the church is heavily liberal) I heard people talking about how we must make more welcome the Republicans in our midst and listen to them.
Sorry to rain on the parade of angry conservatives.
Actually, Chuck, I think you’re right that liberals and conservatives are listening to each other. Liberals are saying, “Even though our grasp of economics and our reasoning processes are about on a par with that banjo-playing kid from DELIVERANCE, we’re smarter than you and we think we’re entitled to rule. So submit to our dear leader, Il Dufe!” And conservatives are hearing that and saying, “Oh, yeah? @#$% you!” And liberals in turn are hearing that, and saying, “Racist!” So I think both sides are pretty much hearing what the other side is actually saying.
I have long since stopped using the word “liberal” as a pejorative for the same reason Rand implies in the last sentence of this post — that true liberals are mainstream people.
In fact, the out-of-mainstream Left has also dropped the “L” word as their preferred label because, they having hijacked it years ago and polluted its reputation, it was no longer working for them. They tried on a number of different labels but the one that seems to have stuck is “progressive.”
It’s still doublespeak, but at least it releases the “L” word from its prison, and allows mainstream people once again to point out that, classically defined, today’s “conservatives” are also liberals.
I think it’s just that they see opportunity trickling through their fingers. Big ideological goals like carbon emission restrictions and universal health care should have already been passed by now. It’ll be interesting to see what the excuses are when the Obama administration finally ends and the dust settles. I bet a common theme among the far left will be that they weren’t sufficiently ideologically pure and that’s why they didn’t get what they wanted.
I think Chuck is a bit off. Good citizens, be they liberal or conservative, communicate and to an extent, compromise.
Good citizens, be they liberal or conservative, communicate and to an extent, compromise.
Good citizens don’t ‘compromise” when the liberties of themselves and their fellow citizens are about to be taken away.
. . . . I heard people talking about how we must make more welcome the Republicans in our midst . . .
Kind of like the position of Afro-Americans 50 years ago. Nobody listened to them until they got up and started demonstrating, making their positions known and working to change the system.
Why is the left angry? For the same reason establishment whites were angry during the civil rights movement. “Let my people go” could very well be the motto of the Tea Party movement, but instead of the tyranny of Jim Crow (defacto and otherwise) and lack of voting rights, we’re talking excessive taxation and central government control of everything we touch. Then the civil rights leaders were “Communist”, today they use “Racist”. Same difference.
That is one of my gripes about the “liberal trolls” who appear on this site and others.
If one of the “usual suspects” said, “Rand (along with many of your other readers) have it wrong about Obama and health care. This is what Obama’s plan is, this is what it is supposed to do, this is the part you misunderstand in criticizing it, and so on, I would read what a person has to say, I really would.
Instead, people coming out “swinging.” One is stupid, racist, did I say stupid?, etc etc for offering the least inkling of criticism, and did I mention Booshhh was evil, and so on.
Is this some kind of community activist project, that the left-liberal contingent recruits people to troll non-left-liberal sites (Conservative or Republican even doesn’t count, everyone not in the left-liberal Mr. Obama-is-great camp get lumped together)?
I know that if I only read “right wing” sites, my current blog-roll is Jerry Pournelle, Rand, Glenn Reynolds, American Spectator, Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air site, Hinderaker, Johnson, and Mirengoff, and of course, Richard Fernandez, I am probably only confirming my prejudices, and the liberal trolls are maybe doing me a service to see how the rest of the world thinks and writes and acts.
But they always come on so angry and negative, and whom are they persuading here or other places to adopt their point of view? Or maybe it is not about persuasion but about disruption of comment threads?
I’m sorry, this mushy headed Kumbaya meet in the middle nonsense is nonsense. Should police and criminals listen to each other more, meet in the middle, join forces on some project on which they both agree? Should the Jews have compromised with the Gestapo? OK, I guess you can take all the yentas over 60 — who wants to listen to them anyway?
If you are a modern “conservative” (liberty-loving classical liberal) then you believe the modern “liberal” (a coddled intellectual Stalinist the product of two decades of soft living and a massively screwed-up education system) is wrong, and not just wrong but dangerously so, the kind of person whose nearly every idea will lead to misery for someone other than himself.
Such a person is not to be compromised with, such a person is to be defeated, neutralized, and, perhaps, allowed to learn from the experience and rejoin civil society.
Good citizens don’t ‘compromise” when the liberties of themselves and their fellow citizens are about to be taken away.
Good to keep that in mind.
Such a person is not to be compromised with, such a person is to be defeated, neutralized, and, perhaps, allowed to learn from the experience and rejoin civil society.
The thing to remember is that such people are relatively rare. The real problem is people who have bought the propaganda and are running scared. For example, I occasionally run into people who are convinced that the world is going to end due to global warming in somewhere under a century. They aren’t stalinists, they’re hysterical. Even if you neuter the current generation of proto-stalins, the hystericals will find another master.
But they always come on so angry and negative, and whom are they persuading here or other places to adopt their point of view? Or maybe it is not about persuasion but about disruption of comment threads?
They’re feeding their egos by “schooling” us benighted fools.
Some of my responses to the “racism” accusation:
“Of course I am a racist. I am violently pro-human race.”
“I am no racist. Some of my best friends have mush for brains.”
“Is that *really* the best you can do? Racist? I mean, if that is the best you can do, that is the best you can do. It does rather limit how much of a friendship we can have, though.”
Karl, the first and most important job of a Stalinist is to breed hysterics. They specialize in all manner of structural motifs the principle purpose of which is to convince people that they cannot and should not think independently, that they will not survive unless they put their faith and hope in Dear Leader.
This is why the common thread in almost all they do is Don’t try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. Formal education matters far more than experience. You’re too stupid to go it alone, but don’t worry, smart people love you and will take care of you. Wear safety glasses. Fear the future! Buy insurance. You’re emotional, we know. In a crisis you’ll go to pieces; that’s why you need to be passive and fearful and trust The Organization to take care of you.
Since they function as typhoid Marys, spreading ennui and helplessness to people who, left to themselves, might have developed independent thought, it does pay to hunt them down and neuter them, as you say.
Doesn’t mean they don’t spring up again, of course. They’re a form of social parasite, preying on our instincts for cooperation — and for being seen as cooperative — to feed their own needs. As long as we have an instinct to cooperate, the parasites that feed on it will arise regularly. You just have to be disciplined about your social hygiene, I think. A little regular scrubbing and disinfection keeps the outbreaks under control.
Sincere question: Roughly, what percent of the American public are you talking about when you refer to “Stalinists”?
Let me be clearer: I’m not hung up on whether a “Stalinist” is in favor of killing 30 million people and other atrocities. I’m not quibbling or challenging your definition. I just don’t understand who you are talking about – less than 1% of the public, anyone who voted for Carter-Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton-Gore-Kerry-Obama, or what?
I interpreted the “Stalinist” remark as a reference to Dear Leader and his red-diaper baby background.
My. Am I a liberal troll infecting this website? That would be a real surprise to lots of people who know me well. I respect and like Rand and think he has many important things to say. His comments regarding space exploration and development are not all that different from mine. That’s probably one of the most important reasons I read his website.
Karl Hallowell commented “I think Chuck is a bit off. Good citizens, be they liberal or conservative, communicate and to an extent, compromise.” Karl, let me make it clear that I also favor compromise as well as communication and learning. I know I get things wrong — even when it is something I am especially good at. I do try to learn from others.
As one of Paul’s liberal “trolls” (which still amuses me btw) the reason I come out swinging on Rand is that after 15 odd years of “communicating” with Rand I’ve found it about the only thing that he responds to now.
Back in the mid-90s he would have discourse, but that’s degenerated into name calling, snide remarks and “pithy” one-liners.
I’ve been responding in kind for about 10 years now or so.
When Rand actually addresses questions asked, or comes back around to a position where he actually has to justify some of the complete junk that he re-posts here I’m more moderate in my tone. But fly-by repostings of another Blog or Op-Ed piece getting facts wrong when Rand doesn’t want to actually engage in discussion? That’s going to be challenged by me and others.
If you want “liberal” blogs I’d suggest Patrick and Teressa Neilsen Hayden’s Making Light, or Brad Hicks Blog, or The Sideshow by Avedon Carol, or, even, gasp! Whatever by John Scalzi.
preying on our instincts for cooperation
So, if we take the healthcare example. There are dozens of examples now of Republican law makers saying that they don’t intend to compromise nor negotiate and what they actually want to do is kill any bill.
How is that co-operation?
That smacks of “grown up conservatives” making sure that the kiddies don’t hurt themselves with the dangerous toys.
Both extremes seem to be behaving in pretty much the same way, albeit by justifying their motivations differently.
‘That is one of my gripes about the “liberal trolls” who appear on this site and others.’
“My. Am I a liberal troll infecting this website?”
Note that I wrote of commentary that “appear(s) on this site.” Note the use of emotionally neutral language. “Liberal trolls” certainly isn’t emotionally neutral, but it appears in scare quotes because it is a commonly used expression and everyone knows what we are talking about. Where did the term “infecting this website” come from? It is language I never use in Web discourse and not when expressing disagreement.
“he actually has to justify some of the complete junk”
Again, what matter of civil discourse is to call something “complete junk”? If it is Rand posting “complete junk”, well, Rand is paying for the bandwidth around here, the rest of us, me included, are guests. If we want to refute it or disagree with it, and I far from agree 100 percent with Rand or the “usual suspect” conservatives, go ahead and make the argument calmly and with respect.
It is kind of like that Wilson fellow saying “you lie” or something to that effect during a Presidential speech to a Joint Session of Congress. Go ahead, call the President a liar, call him whatever scurrilous thing you want, but during a speech by Mr. Obama in the capacity of President in the formal setting of a Joint Session, respect the office of President, respect the institution of Congress and keep one’s silence.
“That smacks of “grown up conservatives” making sure that the kiddies don’t hurt themselves with the dangerous toys.”
What is that supposed to mean?
By all objective measures, the health care proposal is a large piece of legislation that affecting the health and well-being of each and every one of us perhaps for now and on to the next 3 generations or more. There are reasons to be skeptical of this legislation at the very least given the ambitious claims made for what it will accomplish — many people who supported Obama — Mickey Kaus, Ann Althouse, Megan McCardle — have expressed such skepticism.
So the Republicans in Congress are expressing their skepticism and concerns with a flat-out No. And they are childish for doing this? When there are enough votes among Democrats to pass the bill (OK, OK, Mr. Kennedy’s vacant seat, but in the scheme of things that is only temporary)? The No position from Republicans is a tactical one for an opposition party with a strong minority voting position to at least draw attention to what they perceive to be shortcomings of the bill. And this is childish?
“Should the Jews have compromised with the Gestapo?”
I guess the “Conservative” side is capable of immoderate discourse too. Who are the “Jews”, the conservatives or the broader electorate? Who are the “Gestapo”, liberal commentators with bad Internet manners? At best such remarks are “over the top” and at worst they can be offensive to people whose ancestors really did have to hide from the Gestapo, if they were even able to.
You can probably tell that my leanings are more to the Conservative than Liberal side, that I even hang around this site without making snarky comments about Rand’s politics (I have made some tongue-in-cheek teasing remarks to which Rand hasn’t always gotten the dry humor, but hey, its Rand’s party and he is paying for the BW). So I am probably quicker to take offense at Liberal snark than Conservative snark.
But to all you Liberals out there, if a person has been carefully reading what I have posted, you could probably sense that I am not one of the knee-jerk people who cannot be persuaded. But the kind of language that many Liberals use as a matter of habit that can’t seem to be broken (infecting, complete junk, smacks, kiddies, grown up conservatives, dangerous toys), such language is remarkably ineffective in getting me to see that side of things.
Paul,
I would like to thank you for your lengthy, thoughtful comment.
I don’t know exactly where I stand politically except to say it is multidimensional and pays attention to things other than government or even political groupings. In many ways I can anger some conventional Democrats by expressing libertarian views at times. What about conventional Republicans? I live in Maryland. The Republican Party is, at least in the heavily populated parts of the state, so weak it is a major concern of mine. I don’t get enough face to face contact with good Republicans to really comment about them. The Internet, while better than nothing, is still very limited.
Now I must go back to more pressing duties relating to aerospace and more.
Paul,
Again, what matter of civil discourse is to call something “complete junk”?
Junk is junk whether we are civil or not. I tried civil for many years but got rather tired of being called an Idiot by Rand. Rand is pretty free both here and on Usenet with the “idiot” label.
go ahead and make the argument calmly and with respect.
Rand sets the tone here, complaining that people respond in kind is like complaining that people get tetchy with Limbaugh or Hannity or O’Reilly or complaining that Obermann is snide and superior sounding.
When Rand responds in a civil way, I am civil. When he launches into insults and his ridiculous (for that is what they usually are) one liners I respond in kind.
“”“That smacks of “grown up conservatives” making sure that the kiddies don’t hurt themselves with the dangerous toys.”
What is that supposed to mean?”
What it says.
The comments here paint “liberals” as feeling superior and wanting to inflict their opinions on the masses who need their help.
The Conservative and Libertarian movement seems to take pretty much the same tack, just from the opposite angle. The state and the well meaning but misguided kiddies of the left should keep their hands and heads our of our business. Just make sure you leave things as they are because we’re alright thank you very much and when you grow up you’ll see that I’m right.
So the Republicans in Congress are expressing their skepticism and concerns with a flat-out No. And they are childish for doing this? When there are enough votes among Democrats to pass the bill (OK, OK, Mr. Kennedy’s vacant seat, but in the scheme of things that is only temporary)? The No position from Republicans is a tactical one for an opposition party with a strong minority voting position to at least draw attention to what they perceive to be shortcomings of the bill. And this is childish?
Childish? No. But frankly, they’re not really expressing skepticism and concerns, they’re going on record saying they’re going to kill the bill – even though there isn’t actually one yet – knowing full well that if they do so they pretty much scupper Obama’s first term, and put Healthcare reform off the agenda for at least another 4 years and, based on what happened with Clinton, probably longer.
It’s a politically motivated move. Just look at the fuss about “death panels” coming from the republicans when the idea itself came from republicans.
The question is simple: is there a healthcare reform bill that could be passed that would satisfy the republican party at this point – regardless of what it said?
I suspect the answer is a solid no.
It’s not childish, but it’s certainly political.
In the meantime the US has the most expensive medical system in the world, which is getting more expensive every year for marginal differences in healthcare results.
Having had experience of the UK and US systems, I know I am relived that if I needed to I could get back to the UK for treatment if something serious happened and my insurance was a problem. Hell, for the amount of my deductible I could fly Business Class. And, yes, I do trust the NHS with my life and have in the past.
I see absolutely no interest from Republicans at this point in doing anything about the sorry state of Healthcare in the US. I see, instead, a desire to inflict as much damage on the Obama Presidency as they can. While that’s a great political goal, it’s not exactly much help to the people they are meant to represent.
I’ll let the person who posted it “Should Jews have compromised with the Gestapo?” defend it himself, if he chooses; but I for one read it sinmply as an example to illustrate that compromise is not an unqualified good. It might be an analogy, but even there it doesn’t mean that “liberals” are equivalent to the Gestapo, even if both groups have common philosophical roots in the modern Cult of the State.
I find whenever I use this type of analogy, the trolls immediately lose all sense of irony and go absolutely literal. I once pointed out to a State-fellator on another pro-freedom blog, who was denouncing Rush Limbaugh for engaging in “hate speech” (“hate” in the Hive lexicon meaning “pro-freedom”) that if he, the poster, had been living in the late 18th Century he probably would have denounced Tom Paine for indulging in “hate speech.” (And if you read Paine or the radical Whigs, in terms of “being intemperate,” they make Limbaugh look like Ned Flanders.) Immediately he responded, “Oh, so you think Rush Limbaugh is the equivalent of Thomas Paine, do you?”
As I’ve discussed here with, I think, Titus, this feigned or real literalness is so common it seems to be one of those favored ploys–like the Shifting Sands argument, often found here, that these guys must get our of some manual or guidebook from Kos.
Again, what matter of civil discourse is to call something “complete junk”? If it is Rand posting “complete junk”, well, Rand is paying for the bandwidth around here, the rest of us, me included, are guests.
See, this is where I draw the line. As I’ve intimated before: we’re watching the dress-rehearsal of the next civil war. I hope that’s not the case, but that’s what it looks like. There’s almost no point in being civil in public debate anymore because, as Raoul notes, nothing’s gained. Civility, compromise – this is the mode of men for exchanging values, be they real property or ideas. Right now there’s really nothing that each side wants from the other save power. We know how that’s ultimately settled.
That is why I will not call a host out on his own turf, regardless of his politics, regardless of whatever score I think needs to be settled, any more than I’d call him out in his own living room. Respect for private property (e.g.: this forum) is all that’s left. “The line” is now backed-up all the way to the property line. If that goes, we’re toast.
I love getting called out, if it is done intelligently. Guests in my home usually know this already, but I’d encourage them if they needed it. I watched Rand post argumentative comments for a decade or more on sci.space.policy before I started commenting here, so I figured he’d enjoy argumentative comments (as long as they aren’t rude). He can always ask me to leave. I agree with Daveon that Rand sets the tone here, but I see the tone as “argumentative and inviting for argument/debate”.
(Titus, I’m responding to you, but maybe you think ‘calling someone out’ means something different than what I think it means. )
As for room for compromise, there is plenty! No one here wants anarchy or authoritarianism, so we’ve got to figure out how much power government should have, and the country is zig-zagging back and forth like it always does. Meanwhile, I like this blog because it makes me challenge my own assumptions about how much government power is appropriate. I’ve been agonizing for months about the appropriateness of my local zoning commission, and I blame this blog for making me think.
(Titus, I have no idea why you expect a civil war – I think things are going quite well. A depression might have stressed our country and tipped it (slightly) toward civil war, but Republicans and Democrats recently united to avoid a depression.)
I love getting called out, if it is done intelligently. Guests in my home usually know this already, but I’d encourage them if they needed it.
To each his own, Bob.
As for room for compromise, there is plenty!
Also, “compromise” at this point just means giving the Left everything it wants — the only question is the rate. With the election of BHO, the presumed rate is now the speed of light. Anything less is “racist.”
to each his own
I was thinking more in terms of “do onto others…”
Also, don’t forget Democrats are arguing and compromising quite a bit amongst themselves – the left isn’t a monolithic bloc that wants any one thing.
I was thinking more in terms of “do onto others…”
That, too.
Also, don’t forget Democrats are arguing and compromising quite a bit amongst themselves – the left isn’t a monolithic bloc that wants any one thing.
Not everyone with a D after their name is a Leftist, but they will go-along-to-get-along because they know who holds the power of the party.
“The question is simple: is there a healthcare reform bill that could be passed that would satisfy the republican party at this point – regardless of what it said?
I suspect the answer is a solid no.”
The evidence is that the answer is a solid yes.
For all of the talk about Republicans (Republicans, mind you, not the pundits on Web pages) calling any kind of health reform “socialism” and “standing astride history and shouting No!”, it was President Bush and a good number of Republicans who passed Medicare D (senior prescription drug benefit). That kind of thing, I suppose, has been denounced by Movement Conservatives and Libertarians, and they may have a point because Medicare D is another large-budget entitlement in an era of deficit spending, but Republicans had voted for it and even promoted it.
What do the Republicans want if given a seat at the table? I can think of 4 at least.
1) Tort reform (think the 175 million John Edwards made in contigency fee lawsuits, with the policy effect that a woman can hardly give birth to a child without a C-section surgery).
2) Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
3) Equalize the tax treatment of health insurance between self-employed and employer-provided coverage.
4) Allow checks into a person’s immigration status to determine eligibility for government financial help.
Rant and rave about the evil motives behind these 4 proposals or discuss them on the merits, but many people consider these ideas to be reasonable, and if these ideas were even entertained, Mr. Obama could start recruiting Republican votes.
The problem as I see it is that you are trying to pidgeonhole a hundred million people with quite diverse political views into one box. There is no such thing as a “liberal”, only a diverse range of people with quite differing views as to how much government they are willing to tolerate in their bedroom and pocketbook.
Chris, turn-about is fair play, no?