I don't think there is one conservative mindset, any more than there's one liberal one. Nor do I have any clue whom you may misrepresent, or not. However, if both sides do it, it's dreaded only because it's true.
I do wonder, genuinely, how representative Koz' view of the liberal mindset is among conservatives (the previous guest poster on unions had an equally wildly inaccurate view, so it's not like Koz is completely alone). It's hard to say from reading this blog, as the conservatives who regularly tell us what liberals think here range from the delusional rantings of Heidegger to the persecution complex of TvD, with Bob's strange admixture of Voegelin and Sean Hannity in between. While I've seen these types before (well, at least Tom and Bob; Heidegger's too parodical to exist in nature), I've never gotten the impression that they're representative of conservatives at large. And I don't really read any straight-up conservative blogs. But Koz and the other dude (I'm sorry, I really can't be remember his name; the one who stated that the liberal justification for unions is to insure a minimal standard of living, and nothing more) strike me as much more reasonable candidates for representativeness, and I find that somewhat frightening. Not because they or their views are particularly harmful in and of themselves, but because their views are so divorced from reality that, if widely shared, they will make political discourse impossible. I fear that American liberals may also have equally inaccurate views of the conservative mindset, which would make the political discourse even more dysfunctional -- sort of like it actually is at this point.
Truth be told, I'm a bit of a lefty myself. I'm not a communist, but my distance from communism is no greater than my distance from American liberalism (or European market socialism, for that matter). American liberals bother me, but they bother me significantly less than American conservatives.
I await my diagnosis from Bob, now, with bated breath. Or can one's breath be bated in the throes of pneumatic consciousness?
You should put it like this more, instead of getting into the liberal mind and condescending to teach liberals obvious lessons (lessons that have pretty much defined liberal politics for the last 30 years, I might add). This makes more sense, though it still doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Public sector unions, private sector unions, safety nets, various forms of tax reform, health care reform, financial and corporate regulations, etc., combined are supposed to protect and promote the middle class. Since you haven’t argued against any of these, but have instead simply said, “public sector unions don’t get you there alone, if we don’t have anything else, or public sector unions plus anything else won’t get you there, we should abandon it all for something else,” even if you haven’t said what that “something else” is, or what it buys us. So in order to make an actual point, you’d need a.) to show that the things liberals want, from unions to regulation with everything in between, doesn’t help the middle class, and b.) that your alternative, whatever it is, provides an alternative, even if it’s a less favorable one from a liberal standpoint. I don’t predict you doing either of these things, because you’re clearly more interested in scoring broad points against liberals through caricature and condescension.
And who takes it as the operational foundational of the economy? No one I know. At least not in this country, or even in Europe these days (social Democrats are market people to the core, and you can't be a market person and hold that belief).
Good lesson. Now show me where it's not practiced by liberals and the left? Seriously, you're just makin' shit up at this point, given how disconnected from reality you are.
Funny, I seem to recall both sides making arguments about actions being "for the children" and "the greater good," and even some version of "social justice."
And I'm glad you've deigned to teach those of us on the left this valuable lesson, Koz. Now we'll surely drop our plans for global Marxist domination and instead start adopting watered-down health care plans that are to the right of what Republicans were proposing 15 years ago. Oh, and we'll promtly set to work on getting rid of unions, which clearly only work in a perfect world (why else would company towns and conditions like you'll find in this book still dominate in our country's factories and other workplaces?).
Ah, if only you’d written that, instead of the nonsense you did put into this post. This is still ignorant bullshit, but at least it’s not right-wing fantasy-land ignorant bullshit.
I suppose it wouldn’t do me any good, as widely off the mark as your conceptions seem to be, to point out a couple things, but I’ll try anyway. First, unions aren’t supposed to redistribute wealth. They’re designed to make sure it gets more fairly distributed in the first place. The history of unions, in this country and many others, is pretty good evidence that they do this fairly well. That is, the data shows quite clearly that unions help to achieve some semblance of a balance between capital and labor. It may be only a semblance, but it’s much better than what came before.
Second, equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. That many liberals want policies that approximate the former, or that at least work in the direction of it, even if from a great distance, does not imply that they want the latter. And oh yeah, liberals, and Democrats in particular, are pretty much the prototypical pragmatists, so all the nonsense about them only picking the most ideal, though impractical policies, is just that. There is one party in this country that refuses to compromise on its “ideals” (at least to compromise with the other party; compromising with big business is something both parties are always willing to do), and it ain’t the Democrats.
By the way, the argument for unions isn’t, necessarily, that the distribution of wealth is “too top heavy,” because even if it weren’t too top heavy (it quite clearly is), unions would, under the actual arguments for unions, still be necessary.
Since What Is to Be Done, which got its title from a famous Russian novel, by the way, is a call to action, What Can Be Done wouldn’t have worked very well as either a title or a companion piece. The rhetorical point, as a result, completely misses the mark.
I point this out not to be pedantic, but because it is the only thing in this post that admits of correction, much less counterargument. The rest of the piece is filled with so many gross misconceptions, or based on such misconceptions, as to make correction or counter pointless.
The last two guest posts by conservatives, this one and the previous one on labor unions, have me genuinely worried that the misconceptions of conservative thought on the “left” might be as bad as the misconceptions of liberal thought on the “right.” If so, it’s no wonder we’re always talking past each other. We haven’t the slightest idea how the other side sees things.
Blaise, oh, I’m all for reproaching the ignorant when it comes to Nietzsche, particularly since so many seem to have learned him through Bloom (shudder). I can’t say I find your characterization all that compelling, mostly because I approach Nietzsche, and history, differently, but I sympathize with your motives.
I've been tempted, at times, to wonder whether Blaise is not the "liberal" incarnation of Heidegger (who himself admits that he uses multiple names in comments), for this very reason. That and the recycling (how often does he use that broken arm metaphor, e.g.?). This view depends entirely on Heidegger being schtick, though, which my more charitable side tells he must be.
I'm pretty sure our next target will be France. I can't believe we've let these atrocities committed against our merchant sailors go unpunished by invasion for so long!
Seriously, though, this seems nonsensical to me. Is Gaddafi a bad dude? Yeah. Should he be punished for his actions in the past? Yeah. Does this mean that we should be bombing the country, potentially arming the rebels, etc.? That's a huge leap. Are we going to go around punishing everyone who's done us wrong, often decades after the fact, with military force?
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.
Hello Pot, this is the Kettle calling. (See previous thread.)
Anyway, nonpartisan and objective are two different things. Your ignorance is obvious. I suppose, then, that pointing out the obvious doesn't amount to substance. So off your back I will get.
By the way, there's a difference between “Trutherism” in its watered down form, and “Trutherism” in its batshit crazy form, and there’s a difference between “Trutherism” and “Birtherism.”
“Trutherism” in its watered down form says that the U.S. government, or Bush in particular, knew about 9/11 before it happened. While I’m not a Truther of this form, I can see how one might believe this and be fairly rational: we’ve heard for almost 10 years now about the warning signs, for example, that were ignored or missed. Again, I don’t think Bush, or the U.S. government generally, knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I can see where the belief came from. It's not much worse than believing, as appears to actually be the case, that Bush and the intelligence community were just incompetent. I can’t, however, see how the batshit crazy Truthers who think the government perpetrated 9/11 (controlled demolition, e.g.) can be said to hold a rational belief on this matter.
The contrast between watered-down trutherism and birtherism is that there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. He’s released his birth certificate (the long-form, short-form stuff is nonsense; it’s the official birth certificate that the state of Hawaii releases!), there are birth notices, etc., and all Bob and his ilk have is a recording that doesn’t even say what they say it does. They have nothing to hang their hat on whatsoever.
Mike, first, the "long form" nonsense is nonsense.
Second, it's of course true that conspiracy theorizing is nonpartisan, but conspiracies about presidents specifically seems to be a more widespread hobby on the Right than the Left.
Am I the only one that thinks some of the Birther nonsense could have been cleared up in 2008 with a little more effort from candidate Obama?
You're not the only one, but since he released his birth certificate, you and the rest are obviously basing that thought on your own ignorance.
Also, I wonder how much of this is directly attributable to his name and also what % is attributed to his ties to certain ‘radicals’?
The answer to the first part of that is obvious, as is the fact that it's related to his skin color. The answer to the second part is, huh?
It's clearly not the case that large numbers of conservatives wouldn't become crazy conspiracy theorists about a Democratic president if he weren't black (witness the conspiracy theories about Clinton), it's just that the particular conspiracy theory they've invented for Obama is directly related to the fact that he's black.
I'm skeptical, if slightly ambivalent, about intervention in Libya, but anyone who compares it to Iraq in order to accuse Obama of doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do is being dishonest. The reasons liberals, progressives, and the left generally opposed Iraq, aside from pacivism and non-interventionism (which are hardly universal, or even widely held positions on the left), had more to do with the case for the war being manufactured, the lack of a sizeable coalition or security council resolution, etc. Most if not all of those reasons don't hold here. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's not really what Obama promised not to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “I actually kind of like the notion of ‘folk Marxism’ but still…”
I don't think there is one conservative mindset, any more than there's one liberal one. Nor do I have any clue whom you may misrepresent, or not. However, if both sides do it, it's dreaded only because it's true.
"
I do wonder, genuinely, how representative Koz' view of the liberal mindset is among conservatives (the previous guest poster on unions had an equally wildly inaccurate view, so it's not like Koz is completely alone). It's hard to say from reading this blog, as the conservatives who regularly tell us what liberals think here range from the delusional rantings of Heidegger to the persecution complex of TvD, with Bob's strange admixture of Voegelin and Sean Hannity in between. While I've seen these types before (well, at least Tom and Bob; Heidegger's too parodical to exist in nature), I've never gotten the impression that they're representative of conservatives at large. And I don't really read any straight-up conservative blogs. But Koz and the other dude (I'm sorry, I really can't be remember his name; the one who stated that the liberal justification for unions is to insure a minimal standard of living, and nothing more) strike me as much more reasonable candidates for representativeness, and I find that somewhat frightening. Not because they or their views are particularly harmful in and of themselves, but because their views are so divorced from reality that, if widely shared, they will make political discourse impossible. I fear that American liberals may also have equally inaccurate views of the conservative mindset, which would make the political discourse even more dysfunctional -- sort of like it actually is at this point.
"
Truth be told, I'm a bit of a lefty myself. I'm not a communist, but my distance from communism is no greater than my distance from American liberalism (or European market socialism, for that matter). American liberals bother me, but they bother me significantly less than American conservatives.
I await my diagnosis from Bob, now, with bated breath. Or can one's breath be bated in the throes of pneumatic consciousness?
"
Yeah, I'm not sure what history you're looking at, or what point you're trying to make, but enjoyed it nonetheless.
"
You should put it like this more, instead of getting into the liberal mind and condescending to teach liberals obvious lessons (lessons that have pretty much defined liberal politics for the last 30 years, I might add). This makes more sense, though it still doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Public sector unions, private sector unions, safety nets, various forms of tax reform, health care reform, financial and corporate regulations, etc., combined are supposed to protect and promote the middle class. Since you haven’t argued against any of these, but have instead simply said, “public sector unions don’t get you there alone, if we don’t have anything else, or public sector unions plus anything else won’t get you there, we should abandon it all for something else,” even if you haven’t said what that “something else” is, or what it buys us. So in order to make an actual point, you’d need a.) to show that the things liberals want, from unions to regulation with everything in between, doesn’t help the middle class, and b.) that your alternative, whatever it is, provides an alternative, even if it’s a less favorable one from a liberal standpoint. I don’t predict you doing either of these things, because you’re clearly more interested in scoring broad points against liberals through caricature and condescension.
"
And who takes it as the operational foundational of the economy? No one I know. At least not in this country, or even in Europe these days (social Democrats are market people to the core, and you can't be a market person and hold that belief).
"
Good lesson. Now show me where it's not practiced by liberals and the left? Seriously, you're just makin' shit up at this point, given how disconnected from reality you are.
"
Funny, I seem to recall both sides making arguments about actions being "for the children" and "the greater good," and even some version of "social justice."
"
And I'm glad you've deigned to teach those of us on the left this valuable lesson, Koz. Now we'll surely drop our plans for global Marxist domination and instead start adopting watered-down health care plans that are to the right of what Republicans were proposing 15 years ago. Oh, and we'll promtly set to work on getting rid of unions, which clearly only work in a perfect world (why else would company towns and conditions like you'll find in this book still dominate in our country's factories and other workplaces?).
On “High Hopes”
Ah, if only you’d written that, instead of the nonsense you did put into this post. This is still ignorant bullshit, but at least it’s not right-wing fantasy-land ignorant bullshit.
I suppose it wouldn’t do me any good, as widely off the mark as your conceptions seem to be, to point out a couple things, but I’ll try anyway. First, unions aren’t supposed to redistribute wealth. They’re designed to make sure it gets more fairly distributed in the first place. The history of unions, in this country and many others, is pretty good evidence that they do this fairly well. That is, the data shows quite clearly that unions help to achieve some semblance of a balance between capital and labor. It may be only a semblance, but it’s much better than what came before.
Second, equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. That many liberals want policies that approximate the former, or that at least work in the direction of it, even if from a great distance, does not imply that they want the latter. And oh yeah, liberals, and Democrats in particular, are pretty much the prototypical pragmatists, so all the nonsense about them only picking the most ideal, though impractical policies, is just that. There is one party in this country that refuses to compromise on its “ideals” (at least to compromise with the other party; compromising with big business is something both parties are always willing to do), and it ain’t the Democrats.
By the way, the argument for unions isn’t, necessarily, that the distribution of wealth is “too top heavy,” because even if it weren’t too top heavy (it quite clearly is), unions would, under the actual arguments for unions, still be necessary.
"
Since What Is to Be Done, which got its title from a famous Russian novel, by the way, is a call to action, What Can Be Done wouldn’t have worked very well as either a title or a companion piece. The rhetorical point, as a result, completely misses the mark.
I point this out not to be pedantic, but because it is the only thing in this post that admits of correction, much less counterargument. The rest of the piece is filled with so many gross misconceptions, or based on such misconceptions, as to make correction or counter pointless.
The last two guest posts by conservatives, this one and the previous one on labor unions, have me genuinely worried that the misconceptions of conservative thought on the “left” might be as bad as the misconceptions of liberal thought on the “right.” If so, it’s no wonder we’re always talking past each other. We haven’t the slightest idea how the other side sees things.
On “Birtherism”
I love it when Bob talks dirty
"
Blaise, oh, I’m all for reproaching the ignorant when it comes to Nietzsche, particularly since so many seem to have learned him through Bloom (shudder). I can’t say I find your characterization all that compelling, mostly because I approach Nietzsche, and history, differently, but I sympathize with your motives.
"
That comment was a little manic.
I've been tempted, at times, to wonder whether Blaise is not the "liberal" incarnation of Heidegger (who himself admits that he uses multiple names in comments), for this very reason. That and the recycling (how often does he use that broken arm metaphor, e.g.?). This view depends entirely on Heidegger being schtick, though, which my more charitable side tells he must be.
"
We knew a great deal about the Pearl Harbor attack before it occurred. That's the reference.
"
Mike, I submit to you Pearl Harbor.
On “Rand Paul and the Imperial Presidency”
I'm pretty sure our next target will be France. I can't believe we've let these atrocities committed against our merchant sailors go unpunished by invasion for so long!
Seriously, though, this seems nonsensical to me. Is Gaddafi a bad dude? Yeah. Should he be punished for his actions in the past? Yeah. Does this mean that we should be bombing the country, potentially arming the rebels, etc.? That's a huge leap. Are we going to go around punishing everyone who's done us wrong, often decades after the fact, with military force?
"
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.
Hello Pot, this is the Kettle calling. (See previous thread.)
Anyway, nonpartisan and objective are two different things. Your ignorance is obvious. I suppose, then, that pointing out the obvious doesn't amount to substance. So off your back I will get.
"
I'm glad to see Tom addressing this from an objective, informed perspective.
On “Birtherism”
By the way, there's a difference between “Trutherism” in its watered down form, and “Trutherism” in its batshit crazy form, and there’s a difference between “Trutherism” and “Birtherism.”
“Trutherism” in its watered down form says that the U.S. government, or Bush in particular, knew about 9/11 before it happened. While I’m not a Truther of this form, I can see how one might believe this and be fairly rational: we’ve heard for almost 10 years now about the warning signs, for example, that were ignored or missed. Again, I don’t think Bush, or the U.S. government generally, knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I can see where the belief came from. It's not much worse than believing, as appears to actually be the case, that Bush and the intelligence community were just incompetent. I can’t, however, see how the batshit crazy Truthers who think the government perpetrated 9/11 (controlled demolition, e.g.) can be said to hold a rational belief on this matter.
The contrast between watered-down trutherism and birtherism is that there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. He’s released his birth certificate (the long-form, short-form stuff is nonsense; it’s the official birth certificate that the state of Hawaii releases!), there are birth notices, etc., and all Bob and his ilk have is a recording that doesn’t even say what they say it does. They have nothing to hang their hat on whatsoever.
"
http://washingtonindependent.com/60625/republican-birthers-outnumber-democratic-truthers#
More recent numbers than the Rasmussen.
I assume Tom won't acknowledge this comment. It doesn't fit with his "the world is biased, I'm the only objective one" mentality.
"
There are more Truthers on the Left than Birthers on the Right.
First, you have that data?
Second, trutherism was about the government in general (a common conspiracy-inspiring subject on the Left), not the president in particular.
"
Mike, first, the "long form" nonsense is nonsense.
Second, it's of course true that conspiracy theorizing is nonpartisan, but conspiracies about presidents specifically seems to be a more widespread hobby on the Right than the Left.
"
Am I the only one that thinks some of the Birther nonsense could have been cleared up in 2008 with a little more effort from candidate Obama?
You're not the only one, but since he released his birth certificate, you and the rest are obviously basing that thought on your own ignorance.
Also, I wonder how much of this is directly attributable to his name and also what % is attributed to his ties to certain ‘radicals’?
The answer to the first part of that is obvious, as is the fact that it's related to his skin color. The answer to the second part is, huh?
It's clearly not the case that large numbers of conservatives wouldn't become crazy conspiracy theorists about a Democratic president if he weren't black (witness the conspiracy theories about Clinton), it's just that the particular conspiracy theory they've invented for Obama is directly related to the fact that he's black.
On “Quote for the day”
I'm skeptical, if slightly ambivalent, about intervention in Libya, but anyone who compares it to Iraq in order to accuse Obama of doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do is being dishonest. The reasons liberals, progressives, and the left generally opposed Iraq, aside from pacivism and non-interventionism (which are hardly universal, or even widely held positions on the left), had more to do with the case for the war being manufactured, the lack of a sizeable coalition or security council resolution, etc. Most if not all of those reasons don't hold here. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's not really what Obama promised not to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.