April 26, 2007 02:20 AM UTC

A Defense of Liberalism

• 31 Comments
• by: The Probability of the Improbable

First, a disclaimer: I am actually Yevrahnevets using a second account (because I didn’t have my password with me).

This is copied from a continuing conversation in last weekend’s open thread. I did not have time to cut out the entries that are less relevant to the continuing discussion: Please scroll past them if you are interested in following this line of thought. I’d REALLY like to hear our conservative friends’ thoughtful responses to these points.

Unfortunately
conservatives are not, as an ideological entity, true to that credo: The fundamentalist christian wing of the party, which has inordinate sway, is all for government-imposition of a particular religious and moral agenda, and attacks on liberties when those liberties don’t serve that agenda. Examples: 1) States rights are great, unless the state’s laws permit (and have a specified decision-making mechanism for) the terminition of life-support for a patient in a permanent vegatative state, 2) Freedom of religion is great, unless that freedom is interpreted as in any way compromising the Christian monopoly on state-sponsored religious expression, 3) Freedom should not extend to a woman’s freedom to end her own pregnancy. And so on.
And the philosophy as stated sounds so reasonable, but modern conservativism as a whole, due to the influence of the christian fundamentalists, is far from reasonable: Opposition to embryonic stem cell research, and to the use of embryonic stem cells that are produced and discarded in any case, is just plain stupid.

I don’t believe that the least government is the best government, but I can respect people who do. I can’t respect an ideology that says that the least goverment is the best government except when we can coopt government to run roughshod over the freedoms of those who disagree with us. Conservativism has quite the ignoble history of adhering to that second philosophy: McCarthyism is the archetypical and most shameful example. “Let’s wave the flag but piss on the Constitution: We believe in freedom of expression, assembly, and so on, unless we disagree with what you’re expressing or why you’re assembling.” And, though McCarthyism is a 50 year-old conservative embarrassment, I certainly detect some of its spirit alive and well in the conservative movement.

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 20:36:19 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Furthermore,
Conservatives are so susceptible to the siren song of authoritarianism and tribalism.  I would wager that more conservatives are in favor of the draft than libs. You hardly ever see sports team stickers on cars with Dem stickers.  Us-them is a very powerful emotional tool for the tribalists. 
We libs have our own contradictions, I’m sure.  I’m just too close to the forest to see those trees. 

“In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” Ben Franklin

——————————————————————————–

by: parsingreality @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 20:41:55 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Team spirit
I’m a decent sports fan and have liberal friends (one of whom was in such despair over the direction our country was in that he seriously considered emigration) who are big time sports fans, although this guy in particular never wore the shirts or sported stickers on his car. But it’s interesting to see some of the conservative blogging here. There definitely is a sense of team spirit among them that, to me, is just puzzling. Gecko once was confused about “NRA for [John] Salazar” bumper stickers he saw because Salazar “isn’t on our team.” Dobby roots and cheers for any Republican politician and recently was down on some other conservative poster for criticizing a Repub, and said something like “don’t attack your team” in doing so. Even some recent posts from Lauren Bacall seem to indicate that she’s decided to close ranks with the rest of the GOP when debating here.
Liberals tend to be independent. (Hell, I’ve never even registered as a Dem.) Sure, some will pull the party line and conform to a certain extent, but we’re much more willing to call out crooks and liars on our “team” than conservatives seem to be. During Clinton’s impeachment, an attack that made liberals and Democrats close ranks, you still heard criticism from the liberal wing. But with the much more serious transgressions of the Bush administration, from the entire Iraq War (bad, if not fabricated intelligence, POW abuse, understaffed and poorly armored soldiers and marines, on and on) to the DOJ political firings, almost nary a word is said on the conservative side (at least from the posters here) and the denunciation of critical GOP politicians as RINOs (not so much here, but check out a conservative blog sometime – doesn’t matter how conservative the voting record, asking for Gonzalez’s resignation is something only a RINO would do!). It’s worse to “betray” the team than to try to correct the course the GOP has set for the same sort of irrelevance recently enjoyed by the Democrats.

While there is a good side to party unity we’re seeing the flip side now that the GOP is firmly in the hands of an inept man who owes his success to his name, his cronies who view the Constitution as a nuisance, and a bunch of theocrats who are exactly as yevrahnevets described above. This is a fortunate thing; they’ve so bungled things that they’ve set the political pendulum swinging back to the left.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 21:25:25 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Even some recent posts from Lauren Bacall seem to indicate that she’s decided to close ranks with the rest of the GOP when debating here.
Guilty as charged.  I have chastised my fellow Pubs often, here and in the real world. I come in here for political discourse.  To debate and discuss issues and ideas.  There is a wealth of information to be gleaned from posters from all walks of life.  I learn a lot and I like that.  In order to get to the interesting debate and wealth of information, I have to wade through a continual stream of snide comments, harsh criticism, broad brush judgement, and outright ignorant bile spewed on a daily basis directed at both the Party as a whole and individual posters.  I can barely stomach it sometimes, so I do my best to ignore the worst of it and continue to dialogue when things interest me.  I agree with Dobby and Gecko on some issues, and disagree on others, but if you think I’m going to join your dog pile and beat up on them every time they post something I don’t agree with, think again.  You and others are doing a mighty fine job of that all on your own. You criticize me for not taking them to task, but seemingly give a pass to yourself and others for a ridiculous amount of harshness and intolerance. You want less team spirit? Stop the personal attacks and get back to debating ideas and issues.

——————————————————————————–

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:07:21 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Well put LB!
I’m a democrat, but embrassed by alot of the post on here because they make my party look like we are being run by 5th graders.

——————————————————————————–

by: mountain man @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:37:52 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

You also prove my point 🙂

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:57:06 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

You misread me
Dobby earns my ire for being dishonest. He says he’s an instructor but I dare you, him, or anyone to find a single post where he discusses the issues in an intellectual, grown up fashion. Occasional snarkiness is fine, we all do it, but none of his posts are free of it, and even when he attempts to discuss the issues they’re basically just GOP Good, Dems Bad. I expect more from supposed intellectuals.
I mentioned you here because of your recent reaction to a very reasonable, sound post from Phoenix Rising, someone who has seldom, if ever, been snarky or taken pot shots, and certainly wasn’t in the post to which you replied, “Dems good, GOP bad.”

You’re right, there sure is a lot of mudslinging from my side. Sir Robin, parsingreality, and others do exhibit that “Dems good, GOP bad” mentality quite a bit. And since liberals outnumber conservatives here I’m sure that’s frustrating. But that doesn’t excuse you from not remembering who is guilty of ad hominem attacks (not me – I charge Dobby with a specific kind of deception) and who paints Republicans with a broad brush (again, not me – I know way too many honorable Republicans and additionally believe in judging individuals, not groups). My issues are with particular posters who represent themselves as something they aren’t. Besides, am I not Gecko’s staunchest liberal supporter? I’ll certainly take him to task for his skewed view of things and factual errors but he commands my respect for being 100% honest, both about his opinions and about the way he represents himself. He won’t post his stuff but then name drop and say he’s a college professor.

I hardly expect you to join the “dog pile,” and I wasn’t criticizing you for not taking them to task, and I didn’t imply that. I was merely using you, one of the best known Republicans here, to illustrate my point. If that offended you, I apologize.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:44:49 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Would like to have written this myself…
And I concur that I am quite partisan.  I’ve often also said that the current crop of R’s is not the historical crop, which I suspect LB is part of. 
Most of my observations and rants against R’s are supported by data and facts.  Despite asking for similar evidence in many topics of equivalent Dems, I get none.  And if a Dem does un-democratic thing, like K Salazar and probably William Jefferson, I’m right there criticizing.

“In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” Ben Franklin

——————————————————————————–

by: parsingreality @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:03:18 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Parsing
Most of my observations and rants against R’s are supported by data and facts.
I’ve no doubt about that. But I think it’s important to distinguish between individuals and the party. I agree wholeheartedly that today’s GOP is under the control of fundamentally anti-democratic people, but I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse the anonymous posters here of sharing those sentiments, and I certainly wouldn’t go and say how much I hate any particular poster here for what those in power are doing, even if those posters are on the record for supporting those people. When someone here says something ignorant I show them the facts; they usually don’t reply and so it’s left at that, without name calling.

I understand Lauren’s frustration. I’d hate to come here if I were on her side. I myself try to keep above it and take what people say to task rather than the people themselves. Only if the person invites comment about his person will I go that route.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:15:00 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

I’ve tried to follow the same philosophy
but not always succeeded.
I think I’ve fairly well avoided the basic “You are an asshole” category of responses to Polsters.  Certainly, guilt as charged about Bush and this misadministration.  But I’ve also said that I’d have Bush over for a beer.  I pity him. 

It’s like the old line from The Godfather, “This is personal, that’s business,” or similar.  It’s like the lawyers in a courtroom who shred each other and their clients and then ask when tee time is.

“In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” Ben Franklin

——————————————————————————–

by: parsingreality @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:43:21 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Yes, YOU offended me damn it
but I really don’t get it.  Day in and day out, I read insulting posts from D’s about R’s, sometimes to the party, sometimes to the posters.  And what do you, the Independent have to say?  Chirp chirp chirp.  I post a snarky comment, (Sorry Phoenix, your post was that straw on the camel’s back and all) and you theorize a whole premise, starring the bad old R’s and their “team spirit”.  Yikes.
As for Dobby, he’s two years older than my oldest son, and not trying to sound patronizing to him at all, but I admire people in their twenties who have the hutzpa to play the rough and tumble game of political discourse. I had a friend who quit blogging in a Buddhist chat room because the posters were so vicious.  A BUDDHIST CHAT ROOM!  Cracked me up.  Unfortunately, I think anonymous chat rooms cause people to lose their otherwise good manners.

Anyway, no hard feelings.  You have a right to think and post what you want, and it gave me the opportunity to vent, so it’s all good. 

——————————————————————————–

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 22:22:14 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Lauren
I guess I don’t understand where you’re coming from on the team spirit thing. It was a pretty low temperature sort of observation and you took it like it was nuclear waste. That post to PR wasn’t the only instance I felt like you were closing ranks with others on the GOP side, so I thought you’d make a good example to illustrate my point, being one of the universally respected Repubs here. Ah well, water under the bridge and all that.
Whew! I feel a lot better. Can we all have a big hug now?

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 00:13:59 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Hugs all around:)

——————————————————————————–

by: Lauren Bacall @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 21:39:33 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Well
I tone it down here. Written word being able to come back and bite you in the ass a lot easier than the spoken, unrecorded word.
Of course there is snarkiness and flaming posts and posters. Please do not be so selective as to say that it only comes from dems. And, without rereading Phoenix’s post, one thing reps are good at is closing ranks.

Dobson plays the game of “I am going to make a whole bunch of unsubstantiated allegations, pass myself off as a person that is a professor of politics (which, if true would make him the ward churchill of the right), make accusations and insinuations against other posters in an effort to make the seem out of touch, and intellectual bankruptcy and inferiority by refusing to debate issues and resorting to name calling politicians.” If you admire that then you lost a little respect in my eyes. Thats like saying you admire the kids that organized the affirmative action bake sale at CU. Or saying you admire Tom Tancredo for wanting to bomb Mecca. Call me an effete liberal, but I would rather debate policy, as you and I have done many times, than respond to stupid candidate nick-names.

Anonymity is nice for creating falses personas and made up biographies. I admire Dave and Phoenix for using their real names or at least admitting them.

——————————————————————————–

by: Mr. Toodles @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:58:31 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Right, Betty.
I prefer to argue the issues as well, and to just follow reason and evidence wherever they lead. And, Ari, sorry, but I don’t care if Dobby is lying about himself or not: Let him, if he so chooses (and if it indeed is the case). As a 4’7″ hunchback with a few tufts of hair, warts, one glass eye and missing front teeth myself, I can understand the urge to represent yourself in virtual reality as you would like to be rather than as what you are. I’d rather stick to calling people on misrepresentations of the facts we are discussing, and ignore misrepresentations that aren’t really relevant to what we are discussing.
But, Lauren, there is something that is a relevant issue concerning the two parties, and yet has a touch of what we are trying to avoid in it: While the distribution of unappealing characteristics of individual partisans is probably spread fairly evenly across the two parties, there does seem to me to be more mean-spiritedness in the organized conservative movements than in the organized liberal movements. Things like MacCarthyism, hit lists for abortion doctors (and bombings of abortion clinics), and so on. And on the really radical fringes, the KKK et. al. (aryan nation and white supremicists in general), and the separatists like Timothy McVeigh. The radical left fringe has engaged in violence at times, but even then, it never seemed to have quite the same flavor of frothing hatred underpinning it (and more often than not was targeted at property rather than designed to kill).

Furthermore, this “mean-spiritedness,” not just verbally toward the political opposition (which is clearly shared by the two parties), but virulently and physically toward numerous groups of “others,” comes out in numerous ways: The quickness to shrug off and justify the mass-murder involved in the foreign invasions we engage in (rather than to feel that, if and when such violence is truly inescabable, to engage in it with a sense of horror at having to do so), the brutality and coarseness of the support for capital punishment (and the denial that anyone is ever innocent, in spite of incontravertable empirical evidence to the contrary), the cavalierness of the mantras in defense of unlimited or excessive access to guns (with barely a nod to the suffering caused by the current reality, and the almost surreal argument that if everyone were armed, what a better world it would be!). The “us v. them” mentality (not “conservative v. liberal,” which is shared by both sides, but all the other incarnations: the “tribalism” Ari mentioned) does indeed seem to be a fundamental cornerstone of modern conservativism.

I’ll let you tell me to what extent you think this perception is an artifact of my own biases, or to what extent there is some legitimacy to it. I actually shy away from such observations in general, knowing the tricks that the human mind can play on itself once it forms a particular belief-system. But this one is hard to shake.

Liberals have their own endemic errors: A tendency to think in zero-sum terms when discussing issues of distributive justice (i.e., complaining about how rich the rich are, instead of keeping their focus on how to make the poor less poor, which may have nothing to do with how rich the rich are); a tendency to reinforce our disintegration into squabbling groups (in defense of the correction of the historical injustices -and their current consequences- suffered by each group), rather than to approach our challenges as a systemic unity; a tendancy to reject innovative ideas that rely more on markets than on bureaucracies (even though markets are much more efficient solutions for lots of problems), and so on. But none of these errors is mean-spirited. Often, they are just the opposite: Many are the result of such a commitment to being a kind and gentle (and fair) people that the mere fact that an idea is motivated by a commitment to compassion and fairness can sometimes pre-empt further analysis and scrutiny (and, indeed, that defect is one which many conservatives have identified, such as in the insult “bleeding-heart liberal”).

So, what say you, my conservative friends? (I would challenge my fellow liberals to be very restrained in how they approach this conversation). What do you think of these observations?

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:58:57 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Good points
I promise that this will be my final word on Dobby – How he presents himself is important because he is using it to lend legitimacy to his posts. Now that I’ve had months to get used to his brand of sis-boom-bah cheerleading, I couldn’t care less about what he posts. But when he starts to claim the intellectual high ground by implying he’s a published professor, it offends me on two levels; one, that such an accomplished intellectual would choose only to post garbage that would earn him a D- in a freshman level “intro to poly sci” course; and two, that someone who posts such stuff which has no factual support would even try to claim the intellectual high ground in the first place. Again, Gecko and even LIAS don’t do this. And I guess I should add that I’m always offended by people claiming qualifications that they don’t have, even if they’re working toward them. Hell, I want my own business but I won’t call myself a businessman here just to give my posts more weight.
So my challenge, Dobby, if you read this, is to start showing us the intellect that earned you a Bachelor’s degree, is presumably helping you earn higher degrees, and has put you on the path to a career in academia. I would welcome such posts and forget all the juvenile stuff you’ve posted before. It would be greatly stimulating and probably even help attract more conservative posters, which I think is a good thing.

As far as the original point of this thread (is modern conservatism mean spirited and tribal) I think my original post had all I can contribute.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:16:47 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

…
I’m sorry, but I can’t dismiss the air of fixation on Dobby that your posts about him contain, IMO.  It seems to be purely an ad hominem attack.  Trying to pin down exactly who he is also seems to violate the spirit of the forum.  No offense – it’s just how it comes across to me.

——————————————————————————–

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:26:10 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

It only took 10 minutes online
to check it out. That’s not my idea of obsession, and writing the facts I found isn’t my idea of ad hominem. My idea of ad hominem is to call Udall “Latte Mark” and “Tofu Boy” – does anyone even know if Udall likes these things, and if so, does it really say anything about his character? Says more about Dobby if you ask me. Pinning down who he is – well, he’s the one implying credentials he doesn’t have. Doesn’t that violate the spirit of the forum as well?
But you’ll see that I’m not fixated. As I said, I’ve written my final word about him. I’ll address individual observations such as yours but that’s it.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:43:05 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Thanks
For your reply.  Is “Latte Mark” worse than “The Evil Chimp”?
I don’t think DDHGLQ has been talking much lately about his occupation or himself.  If he uses it in an argument, you have every right to challenge him, but doing research to try and find out about a poster that rubs you the wrong way doesn’t seem to be “cricket”.

No biggie, I’m just telling you how it appears to me, but you already know how out of touch I am, right?

🙂

——————————————————————————–

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:56:23 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Is “Latte Mark” worse than “The Evil Chimp”?
No, but then again I’m not the one posting that garbage. And yes, Dobby was talking about his occupation recently (okay, I brought it up when he named-dropped a Princeton professor, calling him a “colleague,” but he took me up on it). And honestly, I wouldn’t have bothered if he hadn’t given ubiquitous clues about himself (e.g., saying that he had “written for the Denver Post, being an instructor if not a professor at CU’s poly sci department).
Thanks for your reply and feedback. Pols needs more posters like you.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:05:19 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

…
I’m only being nice because I’m angling for “Poster of the Month” because I heard you get a free Prius.

——————————————————————————–

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:23:23 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

A closet environmentalist
I knew it!

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:35:04 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Ari
What is with the Cheap Trick Rules logo?
If you’re talking about the band I agree that their music was good except I can’t say that around my wife.
She was good friends with the wife/girlfried of the drummer way back in the late 70’s. Apparently he was a real prick. Liked to beat on her as much as beating on his drums.
Another one of those guys that think they are godlike and everyone else is scum. 

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices….government has to make those choices for people.” Hillary Clinton 1993

——————————————————————————–

by: Gecko @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:26:37 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

He was?
I didn’t know that. Shit, looks like I’ll have to change that.
I recently went in to update my profile on the blog, and since I’ve been listening to Cheap Trick a lot lately I thought it would be funny to have as my quote since everyone else has some political saying.

Is your wife also from northern Illinois? I know those guys got started in Rockford.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 13:32:06 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

My wife is from
Michigan originally but I think she met them in Texas when she was in junior college.
I grew up about 50 miles east of Rockford but had moved before they became popular.
I do know that whenever I mention that band’s name around her I get to once again listen to the story of “that drummer jerk”.
Easier to not mention it ya know?

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices….government has to make those choices for people.” Hillary Clinton 1993

——————————————————————————–

by: Gecko @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 14:09:20 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Ari, I understand,
and have understood all along, where you’re coming from concerning “Dobby.” Your arguments about relevance are valid. Since you’re letting it go, it’s not really about Dobby anymore, but rather about what “rules” we should play by. I say, if someone wants to lend false weight to their opinion by claiming to be a Ph.D., or a prophet, or to be channeling a 2000 years dead Egyptian sage, knock yourself out. If we all agree that we will judge all points of view strictly on the merits of the arguments presented, it makes no difference whether it’s a 2-year-old chimp posting or a recent Nobel Prize Winner. Some of us may find such self-misrepresentation offensive, but it’s okay to be silently offended sometimes. I’m not knocking you, Ari. I’m just suggesting that the more we focus exclusively on ideas, even if we have reason to suspect that some of the posters are bottling their farts and selling them as elixer while posting, the better for this enterprise. I’m sure there are a variety of valid points of view on this matter, and accept that this little virtual culture emerges from the many and is not subject to impositions from any single individual, but, as one of the many contributing to how the culture is defined, I thought it was worth reiterating this particular point of view one more time.

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:36:42 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

…
There is one point I forgot to mention on this thread. Dobby did start out by questioning my “intellectual honesty,” so I felt that he opened himself up to such questioning.
I’d love for us to be able to “focus exclusively on ideas” and “judge all points of view strictly on the merits of the arguments presented.” Actually, given the personal nature of Dobby’s questioning, I think I was judging his point of view in precisely that fashion. It’s one thing to give a point of view and let it be judged on its merits, but it’s another thing when some of the posters decide to insert themselves into the debate and claim credentials which by themselves are supposed to make their point stronger. I think you get that.

Thank you for your participation and feedback.

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 13:50:56 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

I’m not sure where to start
You make good points about the history of the conservative movement, I’ll have to mull that one over.  But it’s like the argument about which party is more evil or corrupt. I don’t know and I really don’t really care, I don’t have a scandal chalkboard.  I don’t hang out with Republican crooks or liars, it’s just not my reality.  The R’s I hang with hard working, independent folks who are civic minded, generous community members.  So when I hear people smeared constantly for their party affiliation, I’m thinking of these people. I don’t think Dems are evil because I don’t agree with some of their positions.  I also see this whole “you bad-me good” as being so destructive to the whole political process.  I recall hearing Tim Russert quoting a Senator who said in the “old days” Senators lived in Washington, their kids went to the same schools, R’s and D’s spent time with each other’s families, etc. Then the price of housing sky-rocketed and they began to commute on the weekends. He theorized that the acrimony increased when this happened. He’s probably correct. It’s harder to hate someone you know.  As I’ve said before, I’d like to see less demonizing and more discourse.

——————————————————————————–

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 22:55:25 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

The nice Republicans 
are seldom the ones in office. Look at CD5. There were several “nice guys” running and what happened to them?  It is in the politicians, not in the voter base, where we find the ideologues and corruption that we Dems pick on. 
I think that perhaps some of the Dem vitriol is because we played Mr. Nice Guy as we were being run out of town (DC!) before we knew what was happening.  No Dem would say that the long term conservative plan was anything other than effective.  We kept playing the old game, as you suggest in your post, not understanding that our Republican colleagues with kids in the same schools were drinking a new Jekyll/Hyde potion of incivility and a take no prisoners, do not compromise method of business.

Another food for thought is that we are just having a good time and feel cocky as we give those neocons a run out of town……

“In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” Ben Franklin

——————————————————————————–

by: parsingreality @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 23:20:39 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Thanks, Lauren.
I appreciate your response. But it’s not exactly on-point (which is very understandable: The point is an elusive one). Let me list the things I’m NOT talking about: the mutual acrimony between members of the two parties, or the personal qualities of randomly selected individuals from either party. I AM talking about the political ideologies themselves. The purpose is not to gain a rhetorical victory of “Us good, them bad,” but rather to understand an aspect of the world in which we live, with the purpose of helping to fulfil our responsibility of helping to make it a better world.
Let me use an extreme example, which is in no way meant to draw a comparison of substance to the Republicans, but just to show why the question of the character of the ideology is a relevant question that merits attention: In 1930’S Germany, many good people were loyal Nazi’s. Undoubtedly, those people saw in Nazism a program which offered order in a world in which chaos had come to predominate. In their perfectly reasonable view, the country needed a strong hand to bind people into a nationally coordinated effort, to fix the economic disaster that had gripped Germany, to make the country function again. Some or many of them may even have disassociated themselves, in their own minds, from some aspects of the party’s ideology with which they disagreed. But supporting a party which had within it these “pathologies” did indeed contribute to what turned into a massive crime against humanity.

Now, while the Republican party ideology is infintely more benign than the Nazi party ideology, I’m not sure that it doesn’t share a small measure of the same pathology. With that thought in mind, I don’t think it serves the political process to be *so* committed to respectful discourse that this alleged “pathology” is an issue that cannot be politely raised. I don’t enter a discussion seeking to insult anyone, or to pound my chest, or to prove that my ideology is better than your ideology. I enter a discussion because I believe that cautious action based on the combination of compassion and intelligence, and arrived at by discussion with others who either already strive to, or can be motivated to, operate according to the same principal, is the best way for us to contribute to the health and happiness of human beings now and in the future. And to ignore this particular issue, which may in fact be of great significance to the health and happiness of human beings now and in the future, out of a blind application of a good rule (avoid “good guy-bad guy arguments” whenever possible) would not be true to that philosophy.

Of course, one could limit themself to each issue in isolation, and argue on one day that invading a sovereign country in a preemptive strike based on falsified intelligence and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process is a shameful act; and on another day argue that prohibiting stem cell research based on a blind moral proscription, while we produce and destroy millions of stem cells a day (or week) anyway, heartlessly condemns a multitude of people with a multitude of horrible diseases to prolongued suffering; and on another day argue that the legacy of history has indeed left the playing field uneven, and that African Americans and Native Americans, for examples, are disproportionately poor as a result of that legacy of history (a history of violent enslavement and conquest of militarily weaker others), and that we do indeed have an enormous social and moral responsibility to vigorously address that legacy of history (which is a much more subtle and complex challenge than just enforcing laws against current discrimination); and on another day argue….

But if there is a pattern to these issues, and to the respective positions of the two parties, and if the pattern is the one I have tentatively identified, then merely arguing each issue in isolation may contribute to the continued ability of many people of fundamentally good will to continue to support an ideology that is not, taken as a whole and on balance, a force for good in the world.

I am not trying to contribute to the counterproductive knee-jerk mutual villification that partisans from both sides engage in. But it would, to me, feel intellectually dishonest to avoid arguing this point when reason and evidence seem to present it to me, considering how important it is to our collective future. I think a lot of people would start to move to the left on a lot of issues if they let the combination of reason and compassion guide them, and I feel a social responsibility to continue to argue that position, as respectfully as possible, as convincingly as possible. I think it falls well within the scope of constructive political discourse.

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:45:28 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Let me see if I’m getting your point
You are saying that you see the Republican Party as having a pathology that is less, say, compassionate or socially responsible and that having discussions about ideology is important and should not be construed as simple partisan snarkiness.  Am I anywhere in the ballpark?  I think I’m fairly sharp and I want to continue this discussion with you, but I’m more of a CliffNotes kind of gal, so please dumb it d….er, I mean, make it a little more concise:)

——————————————————————————–

by: Lauren Bacall @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 22:06:14 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
The choice of words is important: I would avoid “socially responsible,” because what that means is too open to interpretation (conservatives would say that invading Iraq, defending the second amendment, opposing abortion, etc., is more socially responsible than the opposing views, and refuting those claims reduces to arguments on an issue-by-issue basis).
“Less compassionate toward conscious human beings” might get closer, leaving a qualification for conservative compassion toward clusters of cells and brain-dead adults. My argument is this: Conservative ideology seems to advocate a “tough” stance on a long list of issues. On gun control, the freedom to own a device designed to inflict harm trumps the freedom of others to be safer from the widespread misuse of that device to inflict harm on innocent people. On stem cell research, the rights of a cluster of cells trumps the rights of conscious adults and children suffering from horrible diseases. On issues of economic redistribution or investment in programs designed to diminish economic inequality, the right of the wealthiest to keep their “hard-earned” wealth trumps our duty to the poorest to try to reduce poverty.

The list goes on, and I can continue later, but my daughter is on my case right now (she wants me to go to her swim lesson with her, and, as usual, I caved).

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:02:04 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Continued (to be read after my previous response)…
On issues of racism, the conservative ideology is that if we stop discriminating, all is well, and the fact that native americans and african americans still suffer from historical racism by being disproportionately born into poverty is a non-issue. On issues of war and peace, the conservative ideology is “hawkish,” meaning not reluctant to use our military as a tool of our foreign policy, which also means not reluctant to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent foreigners to our foreign policy on a regular basis. On the issue of school choice, the conservative ideology is willing to permit those who perform well enough to be accepted by better private schools to take their public dollars there, leaving behind the worst performers in financially gutted schools. When it comes to issues of taxation, the conservative ideology opposes taxes on principle, even a slightly accelerated income tax on, say, anything over a million dollars per individual in a household, again protecting the right to excessive wealth over the needs of those who are in extreme poverty.
I’m not even saying that none of these positions are reasonable. As I’ve said before, I favor experimenting with school vouchers, and I am critical of direct redistribution programs (but favor massive public investment in community development and early childhood education, for examples, because they help to get at the root of economic injustice). But they all tend to be characterized by a lack of compassion for the less fortunate, whether the domestic poor, or the foreign citizens of regimes we don’t like (and the argument that we are saving those citizens from their horrible dictators rings a bit hollow when those same citizens keep screaming at us, quite loudly, that they themselves feel far more victimized by us than saved by us); whether the young girl saddled with an unwanted pregnancy, or the unfortunate victim of a spinal injury or degenerative disease; whether the continually perpetuated, racially lopsided urban underclass, or the single mother trying to support her kids on a minimum wage job. There’s a “you get what you deserve” or “tough luck” attitude that seems to permeate these positions. “Tough luck” to the poor. “Tough luck” to the citizens of Iraq devastated by a war we whipped up in a moment of intense political hubris. “Tough luck” to the victims of injuries and diseases whose cures are within reach but which violate a blind moral dogma. “Tough luck” to the descendents of those we have conquered and enslaved who continue to suffer from the legacy of those predatory actions. “Tough luck” to those who were born into poverty south of our border who only want to come here and work hard to feed their starving families back home. “Tough luck” to the thousands of species which disappear annually due to another predatory disregard for the natural environment.

It is very hard, when you are not an adherent to this ideology, not to notice a pattern.

On another thread, Sandman wrote that Republicans have the brains, while liberals are bleeding hearts. As I already said, the notion that liberals are “bleeding hearts” really supports what I am saying here: Liberals are more reluctant to say “tough luck.” But are Republicans truly the ones with the brains?

We all know that the “intelligensia” is overwhelmingly liberal: Artists, journalists, scholars all tend to be liberal. People who have chosen to work with, and have had success working with, their imaginations, their intellects, and the processing of information are disproportionately liberals. Why is that? Either liberals disproportionately choose to devote themselves to these activities, or these activities disproportionately turn people into liberals. Obviously, such careers are very dominant in a person’s life: It is what they spend most of their time doing. So, there is a correlation between using our minds with unusual frequency and intensity, and holding a liberal bias!

Hitler hated liberals. Stalin hated liberals. American conservatives are not choosing the best of historical company.

I bend over backwards to be civil in these debates (and sometimes fail), because I believe that’s the best way for the best ideas to prevail in the marketplace of ideas. It’s not because I feel that both sides of this debate are equally respectable. While I believe that some conservative ideas serve humanity better than some liberal ideas, I also believe that conservativism as a force is anathema to the goals we should all share: Forging a fairer, happier, more peaceful, more fulfilling world for future generations. No narrower value, no political fetish or slogan, no religious doctrine should trump those goals. I believe that liberalism (and its overarching ideology, humanism) stand for these goals, while conservativism is driven by narrower goals that often run counter to these, goals that find ways to justify and accept violence in various forms (war, capital punishment, privately owned guns) instead of being dedicated to the deeper values I have mentioned.

It’s not that conservatives are all, or mostly, bad people: People accept ideologies en masse when they see enough others around them accepting those ideologies. How do you think genocides happen? Those are normal people engaging in those atrocities. Personally, I find it almost unfathomable that so many americans are so cavalier about the violence we have inflicted on Iraq. Our domestic discussion is all about our soldiers: We don’t seem to see those people, unfortunate enough to be born within our borders, as human beings (in the army, soldiers refer to the U.S. as “the world,” and talk about going “back to the world,” just one little indication of the esteem in which we hold the rest of the world). And, not surprisingly, hundreds of millions of people around the world hate us for our aggressive, arrogant, contemptuous willingness to sacrifice unlimited innocent others to our capricious choices.

It’s as important for people of good will to stand up and say “Enough!” in these circumstances as it was for people in even more attrocious circumstances to do so throughout history and around the world. In the grips of a conservative ideological zeitgeist, America is not the progressive, liberating force its founders imagined it would be, nor is it the benevolent force it still imagines itself to be. And that saddens me beyond words.

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:31:07 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

correction: “unfotunate enough NOT to be born within our borders”

——————————————————————————–

by: yevrahnevets @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:36:11 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Time to start
a “draft yevrahnevets” movement for some political office. Where do you live? It’s Lakewood, isn’t it? 😉

——————————————————————————–

by: Aristotle @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:08:31 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply  ]

Hey, I’d vote for him!
(Disclaimer: I actually AM Yevrahnevets, at a computer away from home, without my password handy. So I just signed up for a second account, using one of the cool monikers I didn’t bother to use the first time).
Actually, Ari, it’s unincorporated Littleton (in Jeffco). “If nominated, Hell yeah, I’ll run! If elected, Hell yeah, I’ll rule…, uh, I mean, ‘serve!'”

——————————————————————————–

by: The Probability of the Improbable @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 17:02:23 PM MDT