There are several factors at work: Classification: Glenn is not a righty. I can see him supporting (and even being more comfortable supporting) Democrat Hawk. I'd call him a goo-goo hawk. Den Beste voted for Gore. Dems are out of power:Charles Johnson is a lefty that was mugged by 9-11. The single issue focus masks the fact that he's not a righty otherwise.
It is easier to stay on message when you are sniping at the other team
The blogosphere is not hermetically sealed:
The lefty bloggers (Josh Marshall especially) set the lefty tone because The Nation is a joke, Tapped is teetering, and TNR is too right wing for many of them. What Marshall does for lefties, NRO (especially The Corner) and the Weekly Standard do for the righties.
Posted by: Martin at May 17, 2003 04:28:08 AM
The main reason the lefties are more coordinated and on message is that they are under heavy fire. Republicans can afford to bicker a bit. In addition, the left knows that when in doubt, all they have to do is figure out where Bush stands on an issue. This is a strength, but it is also a weakness. Posted by: Pat Curley at May 17, 2003 11:40:42 AM
I'd also add that people tend to be more vocal about things they want changed than things that are going their way, the lefties being out of power have more reason to complain. Also, the Lefties have always been less willing to criticise one of their own even when they go against the orthodoxy for fear of losing power than Righties are (Clinton got no flack from the left for not blocking the execution of a retarded man, but Bush got raked by the right for signing a steel tariff bill and signing CFR, and more recently saying he'd sign an assault weappons ban renewal Posted by: MarkD at May 17, 2003 01:32:10 PM
Patrick, You must not have spent much time at my blog! Though I also link to personal interests like the stock market and stock cars (nascar), and movies, I consistently post political comments and links. I try to promote and defend liberty whenever possible; that's why I named my blog Liberty Lover. As far as lefty and righty blogs, lefties do have alot to shoot at, what with GOP'ers controlling the federal government and many state houses. I get my attacks in also, but usually criticize GOP'ers when they stray from their supposed limited government philosophy. I fire on both sides when I must promote or defend liberty. Posted by: Keith at May 17, 2003 02:31:05 PM
Patrick, I think you are right about there not being a strong righty blog that deals with the daily grind of pure politics the way Daily Kos does, or even MyDD. Maybe this is because there is no GOP primary contest to get involved in. Do you agree? The right needs an equivalent of Daily Kos that covers the daily political ground game. Posted by: Gregory L. Barstow at May 17, 2003 05:43:57 PM
FR is embarrassing on two counts: First, because of the high proportion of wackos present (eg, the folks who think GWB is complicit in a Mexican "invasion" of the United States, or who think Clinton was an active tool of Chinese intelligence); second, because the general tone of the discussion there is extremely introverted and more often than not rude to outsiders. I was actually verbally (pixelly?) assaulted there once for using the term "terrorist" in lieu of "evildoers." All in all, a difficult forum to respect. Addressing your larger point, though, it's no wonder that committed statists would find themselves speaking almost entirely about....the state. Posted by: Tacitus at May 17, 2003 07:04:32 PM
You have a very interesting blog, but the conventional left/right dichotomy you are trying to discuss is as dead as Judge Crater. Having been accused of being a leftist more than most in my life (had to get telephone unlisted in the 60s because people were calling me up in the middle of the night and attacking me as a communist after a book was published), I think I have a right to say. Time to move on. Posted by: Roger L. Simon at May 17, 2003 07:26:20 PM
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that "Right" blogs are all over the place. We cover a very wide range of opinion and content, which reflects conservatism's inherently big tent. I think that since most conservatives have "real lives" outside politics (as opposed to at least the stereotype liberal) that that's inevitable. My blog tends to be pretty much GOP-centric in my region, by the way. Posted by: Mitch Berg at May 17, 2003 07:43:37 PM
Martin wrote: Charles Johnson is a lefty that was mugged by 9-11. The single issue focus masks the fact that he's not a righty otherwise. Not exactly. Before 9/11 I was more apolitical than left. But I've been a touring musician most of my life, and I've visited almost every continent -- and somewhere in there I developed a real thirst for historical knowledge, and made a point of studying the history of every country they sent me to. I saw 9/11 coming. I knew about Bin Laden's declaration of war, and often bored my ex-wife with rants about Jimmy Carter's disastrous handling of the Iran hostage affair, and Bill Clinton's feeble response to the first WTC attack. But like most Americans, I mostly tried to hide these things from myself. Painful truths are hard to face. My politics now are more Jacksonian than right/left. I'll vote for any leader who demonstrates that he/she sees and understands the threat of radical Islam, and has a plan -- and the spine -- to deal with it. And Bob Graham is not that person. I never want to wake up on another beautiful sunny morning and see what I saw on September 11th. That's my main focus. If it sometimes seems to be all about Arafat for me, it's because that decrepit old terrorist, by being so successful at his murderous game, has led to the situation we're in today. And that's a lot more than I intended to write. Posted by: Charles at May 17, 2003 09:26:02 PM
"Righty" or libertarian blogs are more diverse because "Lefties" march in ideological lockstep. Their reactions, opinions, and "arguments" are as predictable as the weather in Southern California. I am a former liberal who moved right, due in part to the almost religious nature of leftist political dogma, and the unwillingnesss to admit or take responsibility for past mistakes (i.e. the mass slaughter caused by Marxism in the 20th Centry.) Leftists today are simply not willing to engage in self-examination or self-criticism. The Left (TM) is in a very sick place these days. I certainly don't agree with much of the Bush agenda but I back a strong national security position. I'm not interested in returning to the days when Hil and Bill invited terrorist-connected organizations like CAIR for tea in the White House. Moreover, I'm sick to death of the negativism and nihlism that characterizes much of The Left (TM). They constantly beat up on the West and Western culture while over-praising all other cultures no matter how sick they are. I'm tired of the Leftist establishment institutions like the media, Hollywood and academia trying constantly to make me (and my children) feel ashamed of being Western, white, Christian and American. Posted by: Susan at May 17, 2003 09:55:17 PM
"Right-of-center bloggers are among the oldest hands in the Blogosphere, and mostly because of InstaPundit and Andrew Sullivan's 3-fold traffic lead over their nearest competitors, can be said to set the tone for (most) of the medium." I take exception to the last part of that statement. If the left truly had anything relevant to say, the words would overpower "the tone" set by Sullivan and Instapundit. However, as you posit, the lefty blogs do toe the party line, whatever that may be these days. But I don't think they succumb to "the tone", per se. They just have nothing to say. Tacitus, please tell me FR hasn't sunk to the levels of DemocraticUnderground in you view :) Love to all Posted by: RightIsRight at May 17, 2003 09:57:02 PM
The Free Republic like it or not, is a fairly accurate represenation of the man and woman on the street conservative. You have your Reagan/GW Bush conservatives(some say neo-cons), you have your libertarians, and you also have many conservatives who are conservative mainly on social issues, the kind of people who wouled have been core Democrats 40 years ago. It may surprise many people, but there is a large anti corporate sentiment running in many FR threads that could put many Democrats to shame. Also of note as well, and it is telling about how the political bases in the US have changed, the vast majority of threatds on religion on the FR website are about the Catholic church, and a large number of FR posters are Catholics. Posted by: John B at May 17, 2003 10:53:19 PM
If the blogosphere seems largely rightwing but too diverse to be party-line, while the left seems smaller but tighter on message, then what that suggests to me is that we're all counting independents as rightwingers. And probably rightly so in the aftermath of 9/11. But look at the very people you've named and they're all folks who could easily wander back off the reservation-- Reynolds is none too happy about Ashcroft's DOJ, Sullivan obviously is at considerable odds over lifestyle, and so on. In fact, the libertarian/independent streak is so strong, here in the last remaining bastion of "the web will change everything" type Internet euphoria, that it's hard to see why one should say the right end of the blogosphere encompassed libertarian/independent bloggers. More like the libertarian/independent blogosphere for a while aligned itself with the right... Posted by: Mike G at May 17, 2003 11:08:28 PM
Charles, Sorry -- I thought I'd read you say something to that effect before. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your political position. Thanks for clarifying. -- mmd Posted by: Martin at May 17, 2003 11:09:06 PM
Mike, I think what you've laid out is part of why we need an strong and autonomous Tory wing of the Blogosphere not dependent on the independent/libertarians -- a group that could intelligently defend even the Patriot Act and make the case against the sloppy jurisprudence Sullivan et al. were urging on us during the whole Santorum matter. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 12:17:11 AM
I'll go out on a limb with an opinion here and risk getting laughed at for some touchy-feely religion-based language. Being Rightist traditionally tends to be more of a personal journey. There isn't anything that can really be called institutionalized Rightism, "Tories" per se, though there are institutions. As a result, there tends to be many gradations of Rightism. And because it is more personal than institutional, there is a reluctance to hew to anything resembling an over-arching doctrine. Charles is correct. Not long ago, being or becoming Liberal or Leftist was based on personal experience. That has withered. Leftism is insitutionalized. It isn't hard being a fundamental-leftist and focused on message, because the catechism is laid out. That said, I'll echo Tacitus and move on, but not for his reason. It's harder to hit a moving target. Posted by: Ringbone at May 18, 2003 12:53:40 AM
Pfft. No, that's what YOU need. WE, the readers, like the four horsemen wing of the blogosphere the way it is: relentlessly pragmatic. The blogosphere is a SOLUTION to the false dichotomy that is partisanship. If we readers want the party line, we know where to get it; we don't care to, because the argument along those lines always rings insincere. And speaking personally, if you push hard enough on the Patriot Act and dig desperately for legalish-sounding reasons to swat at homosexuality, I'm outta here faster than you can say "President Lieberman". Posted by: Undertoad at May 18, 2003 12:59:11 AM
Conservatives dominate the blogopshere the way we dominate the Congress and the Adminstration. It also explains why the big book publishers are scrambling to publish books by conservatives. I guess the Right turns off American Idol long enough to read a book or a blog once in a while. I always found it creepy that no one on the Left dared challenge Bill Clinton even when he was obviously wrong; I am glad Tom DeLay, for example, will criticize the Road Map even as Bush touts it. But I am also confident that right-leaning blogs will fall into line once the Dems pick one of those dwarfs (apologies to real dwarfs) to run against W next year. Posted by: Michael Paranzino at May 18, 2003 01:22:52 AM
Undertoad, you write: I'm currently reading Fareed Zakaria's book, and while I don't agree with all that's in it, this Clinton Rossiter quote he highlights sums up the case rather nicely: “No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties, no parties without compromise and moderation.” Ultimately, you can't be interested in seriously advancing a particular worldview or set of policies without being at least minimally interested in partisanship. If you're for the war, or for going after medieval Islamism more generally, it's useful to remember that these things don't happen in a vacuum. You need an Administration that's willing to execute it. And you can't have an Administration without a party or partisan structure backing it up. Say what we will about the nasty and reflexive kneejerk qualities of the left, and there's plenty that can be said about them, but this is a political fact that they understand and appreciate very well. They understand that to take America's stance in the war in a different direction, they have to get rid of Bush first, and they are focused singlemindedly on this objective. There's no shortage of passion and eloquence in the pro-liberation wing of the blogosphere decrying the machinations of the Left, but I do find a troubling lack of willingness to translate these ideals into the political arena the way the Left has. I hope that changes -- and fast. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 02:02:22 AM
Patrick wrote: "There's no shortage of passion and eloquence in the pro-liberation wing of the blogosphere decrying the machinations of the Left, but I do find a troubling lack of willingness to translate these ideals into the political arena the way the Left has." What would you recommend, Patrick? I'm fuzzy on just what you mean by this. Posted by: Brian at May 18, 2003 05:12:40 AM
There are more indepedent and libertarian blogs out there because those people tend to be more individualistic. A blog gives them their voice. I agree with others who have said that it is just so happens that the issues of the day drive the commentary of these individuals to the Right. I am trying to start my own blog. I'm a conservative not a libertarian. Let me tell ya, it's hard trying to think of something original to say when you are inclined to follow a party line. Posted by: shadowtax at May 18, 2003 06:24:14 AM
This is nothing new. The left's pundits were remarkably disciplined at staying in lockstep during the whole Clinton era. Might part of the phenomenon be because, as someone whose name I cannot recall once said, conservatives these days are looking to win converts, while liberals are seeking to punish (or burn) heretics. Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2003 08:38:45 AM
Socialism is dead. This means the Democrats are toast. When the dust settles we will have a libertarian left and a social conservative right. The libertarian left/center will win most of the arguments. Good discussion of all that here: http://windsofchange.net/archives/003485.html Posted by: M. Simon at May 18, 2003 08:57:39 AM
I read a number of blogs on the left and the right, and I think one of the points several have made is quite true. I'm referring to the tendency of the leftie blogs to hold to a fairly rigid, almost monolithic line. And woe unto the leftie that makes a major departure from that "line." A recent example of this was Eric Alterman's "defense" of charges against John Fund. Reading some of the reaction comments on the "atrios" site would lead one to believe that Alterman was always a likely traitor to real liberalism, is boring in his posts on music, weak on defense of Clinton, and so on. As one poster dissenting from the majority view put it, "What happened...just a few weeks ago Eric was the biggest hero on the left because of his new book!!!" It's really laughable. Posted by: Terry at May 18, 2003 10:33:02 AM
"Socialism is dead. This means the Democrats are toast. When the dust settles we will have a libertarian left and a social conservative right." I'm going to disagree. Socialism is constantly being reborn--as environmentalism, as Islamofascism, even perhaps as compassionate conservatism. The Democrats are not toast. The country goes back and forth between wanting a strict-father government and a nurturing-mother government (with appropriate citation to George Lakoff). If there is a respite from terrorism for 6 months before the next election, the nurturing Democrats will make a race out of it. The organized political parties have a huge stake in big government. If the Internet were a major political force, the Republicans would be pushed toward spending cuts and vouchers, and the Democrats would be pushed toward legalization of drugs. Is that happening? No. Posted by: Arnold Kling at May 18, 2003 10:36:05 AM
"Ultimately, you can't be interested in seriously advancing a particular worldview or set of policies without being at least minimally interested in partisanship." Quick question then: if you were living in a Communist country, would you be a member in full standing of the CP? Posted by: Undertoad at May 18, 2003 10:45:22 AM
Quick response to Undertoad: how can you have any real partisanship in a one-party state? It's sort of like having a relationship by yourself... by definition what Patrick's talking about is the way two (or more) parties interact. Posted by: Mike G at May 18, 2003 10:57:40 AM
This is bullshit, obvious bullshit. Patrick is as partisan and toe-the-line as anyone on the right side of the blogosphere. I hate, hate, hate these "objective" comparisons between right and left (Barone did it with Hard and Soft America, David Brooks does it in most of his articles) where positive values are plucked out of thin air and linked with the right (independence, hard work, and true patriotism, respectivly) and other, negative values are linked with the left (party line, poor work ethic, wishy-washy patriotism). Christ, it is just so much self-flattering, chin-stroking, self-esteem bullshit. "Insty" says Patrick, I think the right is much more independent than the left." The good professor paused for a moment, got a far away look in his eye, and said "Yes, yes, of course the right is more free-thinking." I mean, no shit, you flatter him, he links to you, on the subject of, drumroll please; not being part of a unified organizational hierarchy. Freethinking and massive amounts of hyperlinks don't go together. This is independence by consensus, so called radicalism by committe, and all so much pathetic teethsucking. Posted by: SamAm at May 18, 2003 11:10:15 AM
"Ultimately, you can't be interested in seriously advancing a particular worldview or set of policies without being at least minimally interested in partisanship. If you're for the war, or for going after medieval Islamism more generally, it's useful to remember that these things don't happen in a vacuum. You need an Administration that's willing to execute it. And you can't have an Administration without a party or partisan structure backing it up." That absolutely shines. I'm with you, Patrick. I was pretty apolitical before 9/11, but now will go beyond voting Republican to actual support because I need a vehicle that will get us to a terror free (limited?) world. Whatever things I might agree on in principle with Democrats, they have too much domestic baggage (unions, tort lawyers, PC, etc.) to be able to successfully prosecute a war on Islamist Fascism. Posted by: James at May 18, 2003 11:11:15 AM
SamAm is absolutely correct. This is masturbation. Posted by: filchyboy at May 18, 2003 11:35:46 AM
I am surprised nobody here mentions the National Review "Corner" group blog. They have a number of regulars that focus on the blocking and tackling in Washington. For example, Byron York gives daily updates on the judicial confirmation battles. I think there is a "right" tendency in the blogosphere. I think in general the "right,' loosely defined, is more concerned with discussion and convincing, where the left is often more concerned with rooting out heresy. I am not the first to say this, of course. Posted by: Joseph K at May 18, 2003 11:36:56 AM
As a devoted poll-watcher I have found that the great majority of Democrats/Liberals do not participate in the primaries to select their party's candidate--in other words they are sheep. Maybe that's why they follow the pap fed to them by the Natiional Committee. Try that with Republican voters and candidates... Posted by: Nancy Heil at May 18, 2003 12:14:57 PM
Um, Patrick, I read pretty much all the well known lefty bloggers. I can't remember seeing DU referenced more than a handful of times in the past half year. Who are you talking about? And last I heard, lefties are celebrated for being fractious, undisciplined, and constantly eating their own children. It's a big problem for the Democrats and has been for a long time. Where did you get the sudden idea that we move in lockstep discipline? Would that it were so, but I'm afraid that's just nuts. Posted by: Kevin Drum at May 18, 2003 12:16:47 PM
Oops. Sorry. Is there anything much worse or more boring than _watching_ masturbation? Then why are you here? As a anarcho-leaning libertarian (or some damn thing) I have been all but drummed out of part of the libertarian group -- that part that reads LewRockwell.com and thinks an appropriate response to 9/11 is to lock the gates and bar the door and quit dealing with them "furriners." Of course they are also incredibly unhappy with Lincoln. I previously favored several liberal Democratic policy choices, but it has been getting harder and harder since the deaths of Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey. Joe Lieberman is nice, but he is no Humphrey, let alone a Jackson. Does this make me conservative? Hell, no. I'm still a pragmatic anarchist (think heavily armed Amishman). I prefer no govt, then very small govt, then adequate govt, then that's it. I also understand that, left to themselves, corporations would screw the quasi-free market system we have, but socialism would end it. I also prefer not to know that there are people out there in the rest of the world who want to kill us (I don't give a rat's ass why) and some political types evidently think it's inevitable and we should lie back and enjoy it, because, hey, after all, we deserve it. Bullshit. Until the Democrats (and/or the Left) comes to its collective senses and starts caring about true America (warts and all) and individuals again, I'll hold my nose and vote Republican more often than not. On the topic of father/mother, I would say that most times Americans don't want to be led, they want the govt to be managed. There are frequently seen to be two dimensions of managership (sorry, can't quote the source off the top of my head): 1) goal orientation; and 2) group cohesion. Both Reps and Dems can be seen as existing more-or-less in one box of a two by two schematic. Reps right now are in the high end of both boxes (well, Bush is) or trying to be. (They are usually seen as high goal orientation, low group cohsesion) While Dems are in the low goal, high group (so long as you accept their rules) while they they were formerly seen as where the Reps are now. This is their mistake. High/High is both effective and congenial. High/low is effective but uncongenial and people try to exit. Low/High is ineffective but congenial and works if nothing going particularly wrong. Low/low is ineffective and uncongenial and this seems to be where the far left part of the Dems is heading. Posted by: JorgXMcKie at May 18, 2003 12:21:13 PM
Yeah, what Kevin said. Anyone who has read DU for more than 10 seconds would know that they don't go a day without bitter fights over Greens vs DLC, Christian vs Athiest, etc. Sure, they all hate Bush, but there are even disagreements on how much Bush should be hated. (Is Bush a re-incarnation of Hitler, or just a bad president?) In fact, everyone at DU complains about how fractured the left is compared to the lockstep discipline of the right. An as far as I can see, the only people who link to DU are right-wing partisans who want to highlight the wacky stupidity of the left. Unfortunately, DU provides plenty of fodder for that sort of thing. Posted by: chanster at May 18, 2003 12:27:53 PM
Is it stating the obvious that the state of development of the print and TV media have, one way or another, produced strongly left-biased entities? And that anyone whose political sympathies are different than the current journalist herd mentality will feel plenty frustrated at the exclusion from the media of facts and events and trends of interest? And that these pent-up frustrations have been given a voice via the Internet? Of course the blogs tilt rightward, there's 40 years of frustration being released. Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive at May 18, 2003 12:31:28 PM
George Washington and other democratically-inclined political leaders disliked factions, but poltical parties came into existance anyway. Maybe this is because parties fill a necessary role and provide a useful function in the most efficacious manner. Call it political intermediation, similar to financial intermediation. Given the existence of organized parties in multi-party representative democracies, what great leader has not occasionally risen above and sometimes defied the short-term ideological interests of his or her political party? To paraphrase an oft-quoted theoretician: The purpose is not to understand the world, but to change it. For example, President Reagan almost single-handedly did more to improve the world in his time and for future generations without regard to party platforms. Ultimately, pragmatism trumps ideologly. It takes only one ugly fact to undermine a theory. The prevailing ugly fact of the current era is the equation of totalitarianism with Evil. Posted by: Numeraire at May 18, 2003 12:42:43 PM
"A recent example of this was Eric Alterman's 'defense' of charges against John Fund. Reading some of the reaction comments on the "atrios" site would lead one to believe that Alterman was always a likely traitor to real liberalism, is boring in his posts on music, weak on defense of Clinton, and so on." You can't really demonstrate that leftie blogs (plural) hold a party line with an example of one (1) leftie blog disagreeing with Eric Alterman. That's actually an example of leftie blogs not holding a party line; if you want to show a party line, you need to show a whole bunch of leftie blogs aligning with Atrios, while no leftie blogs align with Alterman. But, see, when two leftwing blogs disagree with each other, that tends to disprove Ruffini's point. Posted by: Bryant at May 18, 2003 12:46:04 PM
This discussion is incredibly illuminating: it points to the way that self-delusion is at the core of every political philosophy. Leftists like to think to themselves that they are "tolerant", while rightists like to think they are "free-thinking". In this, like in all matters of self-regard, everyone is wrong. Posted by: Walt Pohl at May 18, 2003 12:46:55 PM
- "While the liberal bloggers tend to be good liberals, the conservative bloggers don't tend to be good conservatives " If you're considering, as a measure of goodness, a blogger's overall stance relative to the Democrats (for liberals) or Republicans (for Conservatives), then you are on to something. I see almost every lefty blog as mirroring one of the major factions of the Democrats, which becomes glaringly apparent when one of the factions has to suddenly change its stance, or dies. The same could be said about righty blogs, except that there are no hard factions in the GOP. There are hard factions of competing (and synergizing) Conservatives. Thus, bloggers who I feel to be the most Conservative more often than not go against the GOP grain. - "Part of the disparity also seems to lie in subject matter. The four top lefty bloggers focus pretty exclusively on political or Administration news. The six top "righties" — InstaPundit (France, nanotech, "crushing of dissent"), Sullivan (The New York Times, gay rights), Volokh (law), LGF (Arafat), Lileks (life), and Den Beste (general global strategy) — are all beautiful prose stylists but tend to be more over-the-board and are sometimes lacking in the hardcore political coverage we all crave from time to time." Lefty bloggers focus on political news because that's what Liberals are doing right now. That's not to say they're necessarily towing the Democrat party line, but the entire Left is always in the process of finding something "bad" with Conservatives that they can exploit for their overall political gain, because that's all they have. Today, that means focusing on Bush, the Senate, and Congress, because the GOP is in charge. As far as "hardcore political coverage" from the right, good righty bloggers recognize that they are in the business of "covering the coverage," except for (too frequent) cases where a big political news item is overlooked by the mass media, and even then the focus is usually on the lack of coverage on the issue rather than on the issue itself. So are righty blogs lacking in HPC? Sure, but aren't you clicking on the links? Posted by: FirstSpeaker at May 18, 2003 01:02:50 PM
"I always found it creepy that no one on the Left dared challenge Bill Clinton even when he was obviously wrong." Um, you never saw a copy of the Nation in the years between 1992 and 2000, did you? Posted by: Matt Weiner at May 18, 2003 01:15:41 PM
I'm not sure how you're defining The Left, but forget The Nation - you must not have rewad Howell Raines' editorial page during the Clinton years. The Nation hated Clinton, TAP hated clinton, the New York Times and WaPost news pages went after Clinton, TNR was edited by Michael Kelly and Andrew Sullivan - they hated Clinton, the editorial pages of the NYT and WaPO went after Clinton. where on the Left, other than Salon, and to some degree the Nation (but only with respect to Starr) was there anyone defending Clinton? What an odd world you live in. Posted by: Atrios at May 18, 2003 01:34:36 PM
Yes, yes. My side is diverse; your side is all the same. Boy, I haven't heard that one before. Real insightful. I sure that countless groupthunk partisan suckerfish egoists across the centuries didn't come to that exact conclusion. I bet it took a lot of soul-searching to come with something so honest. Posted by: taktile at May 18, 2003 01:36:08 PM
Reread the following: "Say what we will about the nasty and reflexive kneejerk qualities of the left, and there's plenty that can be said about them, but this is a political fact that they understand and appreciate very well. They understand that to take America's stance in the war in a different direction, they have to get rid of Bush first, and they are focused singlemindedly on this objective." Oh, posh and bother! With all due respect, there are a number of people on the left or near-left or whatever-you-want-to-call-it that are far more sophisticated than that (as well as plenty on the left who favored the war). As I have written in other places, you are conflating politics and sports. This is not the Lakers versus the Spurs. That's over--figuratively and literally. Some people are taking a longer view. In other words, avoid the reductionism. This isn't a sauce (pun intended). Posted by: Roger L. Simon at May 18, 2003 01:43:05 PM
Ultimately, pragmatism trumps ideologly. It takes only one ugly fact to undermine a theory. The prevailing ugly fact of the current era is the equation of totalitarianism with Evil. Aren't we all missing a point? Dedication to the "party line" necessarily implies acceptance of lying and fraud as the circumstances dictate. Numeraire, I think you limit too much the plethora of "ugly facts" in our current society. What about the open and outright fraud of the "assault weapons" ban? What about racial and gender preference in the name of "affirmative action?" "Global warming?" Does any rational person think the benefits to the U.S. of the UN outweigh its threats to our way of life in the U.S. and its negative impact on freedom and economic wellbeing worldwide? Can any of these "causes" be supported and promoted without obfuscation of the facts at best and outright lying as a general practice? As to the right-left dichotomy in the Blogosphere, one may differ, from time to time, with an opinion of one of the so-called rightwing bloggers but it is seldom that one sees him avoiding or shading an "ugly fact" or failing to accept a correction when it is called to his attention. Can this be said about the leftwing bloggers or about the left wing in general? Posted by: Ray at May 18, 2003 01:55:14 PM
You've shown is that you don't read any of the top 4 lefty blogs, or that you have a very selective memory. For example, CalPundit: scrolling down his list today, I see a discussion on someone trying to claim conservatives are free-thinkers while lefties are all lockstep drones, entries on basketball, hockey, software, cats, the eclipse, the POW affair, micro journalism, the Matrix, red light cameras, gays, and much more, including current affairs political topics. If you expand to the top 11 of the ecosphere, you get Yglesias, who puts in a good number of entries about philosophical issues that are irrelvant to the specific politics of the day, as well as things like SARS, book reviews, etc.. And if the NYT issues and gays are not counted as political, you can even include a large chunk of what Atrios has been posting lately - making him as wonderfully diverse and "inconsistent" and Instapundit. ..and "beautiful prose stylists" ? sheesh. Half of Insty's entries are single sentences and Volokh writes like a lawyer (duh). Lileks is clever and Sullivan can write, but "beautiful prose stylists" is over the top. Posted by: ChrisL at May 18, 2003 01:58:18 PM
Too...busy...marching...in...lockstep...to...devise...response. Seriously, Patrick, what are you smoking?
I agree with most of Martin's points... most of the bloggers labeled "righty" are actually libertarians, or independants whose righty positions are out more because those are the topics more in the news, the Dems being out of power are more likely to be more focused because they have to be. Pat's also got something in that lefties are more likely to see opportunities for betterment in government, while righties are more likely to see it everywhere else.
The blogosphere is a SOLUTION to the false dichotomy that is partisanship. If we readers want the party line, we know where to get it; we don't care to, because the argument along those lines always rings insincere.
I am inclined to believe that the disparity in the blogosphere is demographic. There are lots of people that do not use the internet at all. I believe that certain personalities are more attracted to blogs than others.
-- Numeraire
Posted by: Matt Yglesias at May 18, 2003 01:58:43 PM
i wonder if you would say that righty blogs woud have been united, "lock-step" in getting rid of clinton? one does not have to be in lock-step to recognize what a disaster the current administration is for the country. one may express that sentiment, and the hope that economic sanity may be restored to the country, in numerously different ways.. Posted by: cas at May 18, 2003 02:06:31 PM
OK righties, you think you're diverse? Here's my diversity challenge: Severely criticize Bush's policies and/or Bush the man. If the vast majority of you can't bring yourself to do it, you tell me how diverse you really are. Phonies. Posted by: frankly0 at May 18, 2003 02:09:17 PM
For those who don't think the left is zealous about making sure all lefties toe the party line, Tammy Bruce's "New Thought Police" might be instructive. As for the right-leaning blogosphere, it's really more libertarian than anything else. And libertarian (with a small ell) is, by definition, not boxed in by ideology. Back in 1996, somebody did a survey of internet users and found that hardcore users were libertarian by a wide margin, and that new netizens tended to quickly adapt to the strong libertarian ethic. Of course, over time, as the net grew faster, that tendency lessened. But still, I think blogs tend to skew more liberterian because the net is still dominated by libertarians. I don't think of myself as libertarian, but rater neocon, which isn't far removed from libertarian. Posted by: Howard Owens at May 18, 2003 02:11:58 PM
Looking at the comments here, I really have to wonder where the 'diversity of opinion' that the right is supposed to have went. I see two themes. One is most of the commenters sort of nodding their heads in agreement at such wisdom, and a few pointing out that there are right-wingers and libertarians, both being called right-wing. As for institutions, the right wing has the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, both supported by media such as FOX, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times and a few magazines. While I see right wing nuances, I see almost no diversity of thought. In fact, in terms of tax cuts and the deficit, and the reasons for going to war in Iraq, I see almost no real thought from the right wing at all. Just polemic, without reasoned responses to disagreements. Posted by: Rick B at May 18, 2003 02:13:38 PM
"Lefty bloggers focus on political news because that's what Liberals are doing right now. " first, it's not true that "lefty" bloggers focus on political news. take a visit to CalPundit or Yglesias. "That's not to say they're necessarily towing the Democrat party line, " How can anyone "tow" the Democratic party line? Nobody can even identify such a thing. "but the entire Left is always in the process of finding something "bad" with Conservatives that they can exploit for their overall political gain, because that's all they have. " Thankfully, the right would never do that. If it did, we'd get stuck in these circular arguments where side A accuses side B of doing exactly what side A has been doing all along. "Today, that means focusing on Bush, the Senate, and Congress, because the GOP is in charge." Not because they're in charge, but because they're doing a crappy job. -c Posted by: ChrisL at May 18, 2003 02:21:36 PM
What the hell are you talking about, I thought the liberals were the ones smoking weed? The Right is so lock-step joined at the hip, on the same page of Mein Kompf, tuned to the same channel of Rush and Sean, that I don't need to ask the question because I've heard the answer ten times before lunch. Posted by: dain at May 18, 2003 02:30:28 PM
What the hell are you talking about, I thought the liberals were the ones smoking weed? The Right is so lock-step joined at the hip, on the same page of Mein Kompf, tuned to the same channel of Rush and Sean, that I don't need to ask the question because I've heard the answer ten times before lunch. Posted by: dain at May 18, 2003 02:30:45 PM
This is a joke, right? A parody site like "Landover Baptist Church"? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 02:33:06 PM
I do not believe that I have ever seen Atrios, Marshall, Yglesias, Kevin Drum, or any of the other so-called leftists link to Democratic Underground. And when I was on that site (up until ~10 months ago), it wasn't nearly as harsh and imbecile as FR. The right is less in lock step than the left partly because there's a lot of doubtful stuff out there: the Patriot Act, Bush's fiscal and economic policy, the Armageddon Christians, and the neo-Confederates. The influence of Trotskyists and Maoists in the left is really quite slight; they set the place and time for a couple of demonstrations. Ho Hum. In my case, for awhile I kept my political and my non-political sites separate. Just recently I merged them. You would have gotten a false impression. As for Clinton, I supported him primarily because of the nature of the assault on him and the quality of his enemies. I didn't vote for Gore (wish I had) and probably didn't vote for Clinton (can't remember). He tried to appease the right, which pissed me off royally, and then found out that appeasement doesn't work. Posted by: zizka at May 18, 2003 02:41:46 PM
"I hate, hate, hate these "objective" comparisons between right and left (Barone did it with Hard and Soft America, David Brooks does it in most of his articles) where positive values are plucked out of thin air and linked with the right (independence, hard work, and true patriotism, respectivly) and other, negative values are linked with the left (party line, poor work ethic, wishy-washy patriotism). " Yes, and who can forget the primary example of this: the facile "Red State People good; Blue State People bad" analyses we saw following Election 2000. Isn't it also possible that "lefty bloggers make the most of their limited traffic by being very party line on Bush and most domestic issues" because people are reading these blogs to get news and opinion they can't get elsewhere? Ironically, this was a widely touted reason for the rise of Rush Limbaugh and his imitators--people thought conservative opinion was being under-represented in the other media. But it's now 2003, Bush has been all but canonized and liberal opinion on the airwaves is almost impossible to find. Atrios et al. are benefitting. Posted by: Charlie T. at May 18, 2003 02:53:10 PM
If "righty" bloggers are so free thinking, how come I haven't seen one discuss the merits of the House's (much better in my opinion) dividend tax reform compared to the Senate's much worse version? Is it because the Senate version mirrors the President's proposal while the House veers off course? Is the righty blogosphere so desperate to keep the President's win streak alive that they won't even get behind a principled conservative tax package (the House version) for fear of upsetting Bush? It seems to me that Clinton (and almost all other previous Prezs) respected the right of Congress to fashion either their own ideas or to amend Presidential proposals. When two competing conservative ideas are out there, there's no discussion of the merits on the left (because naturally they're against any tax cut right now) and the right (including pro journalists like Kudlow at NR) just seem to line up behind the President's proposal. Some diversity of thought! Posted by: Chris at May 18, 2003 03:22:48 PM
This entire discussoin is an example of the classic "disinction without a difference": Both liberals and conservatives tend to see their opposite numbers as caricatures. Posted by: Grandma Moses at May 18, 2003 03:29:49 PM
How quickly you forget -- it was Reagan that introduced the 11th Commandment, and rank and file Republicans have been. . . busy. . . marching. . . in . . . lockstep. . . ever . . . since. In terms of Democrats marching in lockstep --- haven't you people ever heard of RALPH NADER!!! Had the Dems/Liberals been marching lockstep, Gore would be President right now. It's easy in these types of arguments to throw your hands up and declare a pox on both houses. But if you actually look at the FACTS in our RECENT HISTORY only one conclusion could possibly suggest itself to reasonable people: Democrats have a fractured and disorganized agenda while Republians march in lockstep so that they can damn the torpedoes and win, win, win. Posted by: pontificator at May 18, 2003 03:36:06 PM
Had the Dems/Liberals been marching lockstep, Gore Vidal would be President right now! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 03:45:20 PM
For a fractious bunch, you sure are good at flooding the place with commentary saying exactly the same thing! Were I as inventive as Sidney Blumenthal, I could conjure up the specter of a "coordinated smear campaign." Case in point, the linkage from the "right" fails to produce a similiarly spirited ideological counterattack. Re-read my original post. It's not an indictment of the Left, but rather an acknowledgment of something it does well. Being topically diverse and all over the place can make "righty" blogs interesting, but it can also make them disorganized and unfocused when it comes to translating their ideals into political action. This is self-criticism of the right, not necessarily an indictment of the left, although some choose to read it that way. The point that these "righty" blogs aren't really conservative is well taken, and it's further proof that, aside from The Corner, there isn't really a cohesive conservative presence in the Blogosphere at the highest levels. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 03:48:43 PM
"Not an indictment of the left"? Then what do you mean by "being very party line on Bush and most domestic issues"? There are a million ways to criticize Bush and deal with domestic issues that have nothing to do with any "party line." Unless, of course, you believe that critizing Bush in any way shape or form makes one a card-carrying Stalinist. And I suspect you do. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 03:59:08 PM
I was once accused of being both a communist and a fascist on the same day (by different people at least). These days more people are more likely to call me a liberal (though I don't necessarily feel like one). But I'm so clearly not a conservative on social issues (around 1980 or so I was close to being a Republican but their aggressive 'with us or against us' stance on social issues pulled that particular plug). On the other hand, I can't stand around being most lefty activists and their endless 'quien es mas progresivo' pissing contests. I favor smaller, less intrusive governments and want the nanny state to stay the hell out of my private life. But I also grew up in the segregated south and realize it required federal intervention to end that particular ugliness and not the exercise of states rights or private initiative. In the world today. I think there is a real and present danger from radical Islamic fundmentalists which requires clarity of perception and action. It doesn't require smearing all Arabs or Moslems or snipe-hunts after WMDs and undoing the good work of replacing bad governments by losing interest as half-assed, incompetent deal-making instead of unglamorous but real nation-building. The presidential candidate that's centrist to moderately right on finance and government, libertarianish on social issues and who favors being diplomatic to our allies and tough as hell on Saudi Arabia (and promoting real civil democracy in Iraq and not forgetting about Afghanistan) has got my vote. Am I right or left? Posted by: Michael Farris at May 18, 2003 04:15:20 PM
"Re-read my original post." it's still incorrect. 3 of the top-5 lefty blogs are every bit as diverse as Instapundit, Volokh or Sullivan. Posted by: ChrisL at May 18, 2003 04:19:02 PM
For my own edification, here -- what are the top lefty blogs? Atrios, Kos, CalPundit, Yglesias, Sawicky? Posted by: Tacitus at May 18, 2003 04:20:58 PM
"It's not an indictment of the Left, but rather an acknowledgment of something it does well." Wow, if today's left is an organized, lockstep, kickass political war machine, I would hate to see it when it was fractured! In addition, saying the left is"very party line on Bush and most domestic issues" is obviously a prejorative, both in your eyes, and the eyes of the right, because you think it to be true and bad. I mean, you slam the left with some degree of regularity (you are a strong Bush partisan), so pardon me if I dont take that as the compliment you (didn't) intend. I mean, really, what ARE you thinking? Who do you think you're kidding about this? Posted by: SamAm at May 18, 2003 04:30:29 PM
Tacitus, Throw in Marshall (at #3), and yeah. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 04:31:01 PM
I repeat my challenge: if people on the right are "diverse" in their views, they should be able to find some significant aspect of Bush's policies and/or of Bush the man that they are willing to strongly criticize. Put up or shut up. Posted by: frankly0 at May 18, 2003 04:38:56 PM
I'm with frankly0 on this one. Nearly everyone under the sun has linked to this post by now, so you sure as hell can bet that all the "diverse" right wing bloggers have seen this comment thread. So let's see how diverse they really are. Will anyone do what the Nation and the New York Times did on a regular and consistent basis during the Clinton administration? Will any of you "diverse" right wing bloggers criticize Goerge W. Bush? This comment thread is your perfect opportunity. I think any reasonable minded person would view the failure to respond with criticisms of Bush, or, at the very least, past examples of Bush criticisms by "diverse" right wing bloggers, as prima facie evidence that no such diversity exists, and that you right wing bloggers all march lock step behind the Bush-Republican political machine. Posted by: pontificator at May 18, 2003 04:46:56 PM
frankly0, you've not been reading my site much. Posted by: Tacitus at May 18, 2003 04:48:53 PM
Thank God for conservative websites like www.talkingpointsmemo.com that talk about stuff like, going by the front page; redistricting, Hezbollah in Baghdad, Wolfowitz, Turkish politics, Democrats and national security, state's rights, homeland security, Tom Delay, VS Naipaul and Muslims, and the California GOP. That's some good old diversity of of topic. Patrick, you may be on to something here... Posted by: SamAm at May 18, 2003 04:52:11 PM
FYI -- Tacitus is exempted from the challenge -- :-) Posted by: pontificator at May 18, 2003 04:53:02 PM
Tacitus, I've been reading your blog for a while now, and you do indeed veer from the Party Line. And, I recall you recently had a post where you commented how the Right gives you grief for not being a Good Conservative, for not espousing the party line quite vigorously enough. (In fact I commented, to that post, that that was the exact reason I read your blog.) So, there is obivously a monolithic bloc of righty blogs out there somewhere, or you wouldn't have something to feel apart from... Posted by: ChrisL at May 18, 2003 04:55:50 PM
The right is diverse in their views? What a joke. Do I need to remind everyone that "diversity" is a four-letter word in the GOP? This is almost as laughable as the idea that right-leaning women are better looking...with Ann Coulter as exhibit A. Posted by: space at May 18, 2003 04:56:40 PM
No, cant agree with any of that. Lefties (and I AM one) cant agree on the weather let alone complex political issues. Righties are much more likely to be in lockstep. masada Posted by: masada at May 18, 2003 04:57:35 PM
And one more word...dittoheads. Actually taking pride in mindless assimilation (and no, the term is not sarcastic). Posted by: space at May 18, 2003 04:59:36 PM
Yeah, well - if the right were really in lockstep to the degree they're sometimes portrayed, President Nixon would have been followed by President Agnew, then President Reagan, then TWO terms of President Bush Sr. followed by President Dole. And after that, W. would be elected Dictator-for-Life, just like he wanted.
-unk
Politics: the science of figureheads and scapegoats.
As has been pointed out elesewhere, there's something about being out of power that tends to promote unity--we're seeing this now among congressional Democrats.
Had the Dems/Liberals been marching lockstep, Gore Vidal would be President right now!
Posted by: The Unknown Blogger at May 18, 2003 05:01:51 PM
Okay, since Frankly sounds like he's about to have a coronary, here's a few criticisms of Bush, from a righty/libertarian: - Steel tariffs. Inexcusable pander to union workers in PA and OH. - Support for the "Assault Weapons" ban. - Not reining in Ashcroft's meddling in the OR assisted-suicide lawsuits. - The smirk. Not nearly as common as it was while he was campaigning, but still shows up from time to time. Posted by: Ron at May 18, 2003 05:05:57 PM
Actually they're very different. The righties think radical=conservative. The lefties are often conservative, that is they believe in the bill of rights and the constitution. The righties like to talk loudly and carry a big stick. The righties believe in government in the bedroom, government spying on citizens, citizens spying on each other, corporate freedom from taxes or ethical behavior, corporate ownership of the government, the use of the American military against the American people, big government, big deficits and lots of complaining about big government and taxes. Posted by: attilla at May 18, 2003 05:08:22 PM
Ha. Okay, ChrisL, touché. Posted by: Tacitus at May 18, 2003 05:08:45 PM
Oh, FWIW, Reynolds has been less-than-flattering regarding Bush's muddled stance on cloning and the Patriot Act, and Sullivan has jumped all over Santorum and his supporters for his stance on sodomy laws. Lileks, Volokh, and Den Beste are not exactly political, and Johnson focuses his blog on middle east issues, which tend to cut across political lines to a large extent. Posted by: Ron at May 18, 2003 05:13:47 PM
JorgXMcKie I came here because Glen pointed to it and said it was interesting. Sometimes he does point to interesting things. Not in this case. Patrick's post is just as messed up as SamAm said. Patrick if you want to make a map of the blogosphere in which you ask varying writers of these blogs to answer very specific policy questions then you may come up with some interesting data and could come up with some valid criticism. It may work well as some kind of color coded map not unlike your precinct map. If it were an open API so blogs could register and then define their "color" on the evolving list of policy questions it may prove to be fascinating. If such a thing were somehow integrated into the Bears project it may prove to be even more interesting. But as it you're are making bald assertions that rely upon assumptions which we do not share. I consider GWB to be the most NON-CONSERVATIVE idiot I have yet to encounter. Most of you folks would probably call me a liberal but I was raised in a Republican household and consider myself to be deeply conservative. Since we do not even agree on the definition of what left and right is your assertions are just as SamAm describes. Posted by: filchyboy at May 18, 2003 05:30:43 PM
I think it is human nature to regard one's adversaries as being more "disciplined," "organized," and marching in "lock-step" than the home team. It helps explain the inexplicable (i.e., why everyone hasn't acknowledged the wisdom of your views), and helps soothe failure. The analysis still can be broadly *true*, of course ... but it can also be the first step toward irrationality & conspiracy theory. Posted by: Matt Welch at May 18, 2003 05:46:38 PM
Well I, at least, am relieved to find no scary extremists in the top 10. I don't, thinking it over, see the lefty bloggers as more political than the righties; this may be an illusion generated by reading from a political stance. It would be interesting to do article subject counts on both sides; I suspect the proportion of political and non-political posts would be more similar than different. In my view, it's not that the bloggers on either side are marching in lockstep; it's just that some views are closer to the center and get more links than others. We really don't know about general readership, either; a study of comment columns might give some very interesting and different results and even that study wouldn't cover the general readers. And don't underestimate the effects of income-level differences; to be a blogger one has to have time to spend on it, and a bit of money for a computer and a net connection. It's interesting that there are more links to the lefties than the righties, but it may be that this is showing us where the center really is; the political center of the USA is not where the Republican leadership is. After all; the religious politics of the R leadership are not very popular, the country is majority-environmentalist (a few years ago, 60%) and the R leadership is not, and there's not very many people for exploding the national debt anywhere on the political spectrum and that seems the likely effect of R-leadership policies. Me, I'm a damned radical. I leave my position as an exercise to the readership. Posted by: John Hackworth at May 18, 2003 05:59:25 PM
I have found ittiresome to listen to the name calling between those on the Left and those on the Right and much prefer to judge position on specific issues rather than a lining up with an alleged political party...and all the name calling associated along with it. Posted by: freddie at May 18, 2003 06:03:15 PM
Reynolds and Sullivan are ambidextrous. Since Sullivan can't find WMD's, Sullivan is washing his hands. Please spare the people on the right the argument that these two nitwits are not on the right. If it weren't for war, Atrios, Reynolds and Sullivan would be holding hands, and would be acting like Singing Nuns. Posted by: loud mouths at May 18, 2003 06:03:26 PM
Attila sounds committed, he's convinced me, I had no idea righties believed in all that. I thought conservatives, if they seem to be in agreement on most issues ("lock-step"), it is because they have a leader, and have formed a consensus about the wisdom of following him for as long as he makes generally good sense on matters of concern to the nation and the world. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 18, 2003 06:08:17 PM
To respond to a few of the points Patrick made (rather than delve into the muck of this comment board), I would only agree that two of the "six top righties" listed (Lileks and Sullivan) are "beautiful prose stylists." The rest are about average in terms of writing skill; they just possess a lot of knowledge (Volokh, Den Beste, and Reynolds) or are link mavens (Reynolds and Johnson). Do "right-wing" bloggers toe the party line? Some do, but it's worth noting that most of them are probably right-libertarians who voted for Clinton in 1992 (and possibly 1996). They may identify with Bush because of his stance on the war on terror, but most don't have a strong attachment to the Republican Party. They are more likely than not pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-drug legalization -- three positions that place them at odds with the Republican platform. But they are also typically anti-gun control, anti-taxation, and pro-war -- three positions which get them labeled "right" to begin with. How about the lefties? Are they all monolithic? Are they all boring writers? Josh Marshall is a joy to read, even if I don't agree with 75% of what he says (I'd call him a "beautiful prose stylist," too). Matthew Yglesias is also a great read from time to time, though his anti-Bush tirades sometimes get the better of him. Mickey Kaus is even more likely to deviate from liberal orthodoxy, and Kevin Drum often seems like a New Democrat rather than orthodox liberal. As other commenters have noted, few (if any) left-wing bloggers will link to DU; however, this doesn't stop Atrios and Kos' comment sections from being every bit as vile as the DU can be (or FR on the right, for that matter). The main problem with left-wing bloggers right now is that they're by and large locked into a "hate-Bush malaise" similar to the Clintophobia that plagued right-wing talk radio in the mid-1990s. It really detracts from their arguments when every other post seems to offer a new angle on why someone should hate Bush. And Christopher Hitchens' record of bashing Clinton notwithstanding, it's hard to write continuously about how much you hate someone without your writing descending into mediocrity. The right was proof of that in the 1990s and the left is proof of that now. Posted by: Matthew at May 18, 2003 06:13:45 PM
Here's my diversity challenge: Severely criticize Bush's policies and/or Bush the man." Agreeing to extend the assault weapons ban is pointless at best and raw cynicism at worst. The steel tarrif policy is idiotic. That anyone should fear the government over smoking some pot is absurd. Any policy supporting private prayer in public schools should be immediately replaced by a policy of public prayer for private schools. I could go on, but I have to go put my Bush in '04 bumper sticker on my car. Posted by: Michael Wagner at May 18, 2003 06:15:34 PM
[W]e need ... a group that could intelligently defend even the Patriot Act . . . Patrick, you have succeeded in putting it very succinctly. There is no one able to *intelligently* defend *even* the Patriot Act. Why is that, I wonder? Posted by: workin_granny at May 18, 2003 06:15:54 PM
1. Tactile and Welch are correct. In all honesty, as a left-liberal I can detect significant differences in the political views and tone of Atrios, Marshall, Yglesias, CalPundit, Welch and Alterman, possibly because I agree with them on most issues; when I disagree, I tend to remember where. On the other hand, it is hard for me to distinguish the positions held by Sullivan, LGF, Instapundit and Lileks on the war with Iraq, or on Bill Clinton's foreign policy, or on the evil NY Times, whereas conservatives might be able to see nuances among those writers; 2. Re the point made by Gregory Barstow and the host, a superb conservative site devoted to pure partisan politics can be found at www.realclearpolitics.com. Posted by: Steve Smith at May 18, 2003 06:20:37 PM
"But yet, he is always genial" Especially when he's sentencing someone to death. "Lefties are always automatically (lockstepishly) against Bush; his world view is so different from theirs that he apparently is a sort of psychological threat to them, on a personal level." The "Patriot Act" threatens us ALL on a personal level. But you wouldn't know about that because you think it applies only to people like me and not people like you. Or to put it another way Rick Santorum is just as interested in prosecuting you for what you do in bed as he is in me. "Bush has NO IDEA that he is this monster threat to their innermost beings, and that he simply operates on an utterly different plane" I'll admit he's clueless about a vast number of things. "The lefties will settle down as soon as they have a leader to focus them. " And now we come to the essential difference between Left and Right. You want a "Leader" to tell you what to do. You can't think for yourself at all. And the notion of making common cause with others to deal with a vast variety of social problems -- some of which may affect you directly and others that may not -- is anathema to you. If you bothered to notice the enormous protest demonstrations tath took place prior to the Iraq Attack had no leader. Of course I'm sure you imagine that I have a shrine to Janeane Garafolo in my living room. So much easier than thinking, isn't it? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 06:21:16 PM
This discussion usually has the flavor of a Bizarro World comic to lefties like me, but in this case I'm pretty much in agreement with the basic notion that the right is more fractious these days. If I were a rightie, however, I'd be more nervous than celebratory. First, the terms being used are imprecise and silly. It's not about totalitarian lock-step leftists vs. patriotic free thinking Americans. It's about Republicans vs. Democrats, which is the way these things are actually defined in real world politics in this country --- even though bloggers hate to think of themselves in such prosaic terms. ("I'm a libertarian neocon pragmatist with fiscal conservative leanings and a taste for traditional, yet idealistic, values. Seek same for links and mutual adoration.") The factions within the parties are only useful to the extent they explain the party's strategy and philosophy. Only by the vagaries of two anachronistic and essentially undemocratic institutions -- the Senate and the Electoral college -- do Republicans hold their majority. All perfectly legal and traditional, of course, but Karl Rove knows that this does not translate into a clear Republican majority in the country at large. The US is pretty much 50/50 right now. In order to win the election in '04, Rove must keep all Republicans motivated to vote. This is not as easy as it sounds. What you might call "big tent" conservatism is actually an ad hoc coalition of social conservatives, big business, bigots (sorry but it's true), libertarians and insecure "Father Knows Best" working stiffs. The philosophical incompatibility between libertarians and social conservatives alone makes the Republican Party increasingly reliant on phony rhetoric and bait and switch tactics to placate the religious true believers who have strong principles and an uncompromising social agenda while staying true to the Republican ideal of rugged individualism and self-reliance that is personified in the libertarian wing. Hence, Justice Department crackdowns on medical marijuana in California and Oregon while deferring to states rights on the confederate flag or White House support for the assault weapons ban while setting forth an official legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment as an individual right to bear arms. This is incoherent. "Choice" is upheld as a libertarian value of individual freedom, from taxpayer funded religious schools to the right to free assembly at an all white prom. Yet, half the population should be required to submit to the power of the state when it comes to abortion, a situation so uniquely personal that the government would literally be intervening against the individual in a moral conflict that can only exist within the individual's own body. This dissonence is becoming increasingly obvious i.e., "Rick Santorum is a man of tolerance." The Democrats have had similar problems in the past, but we are more cohesive than usual right now (which isn't saying much.) It's amazing how a party line impeachment vote, a disputed election decided by a narrow majority in the Supreme Court(in which the opposition did not win the popular vote) and total minority status through a handful of heartbreakingly close electoral defeats will bring a party together. Let's not pretend that the Republican Party would not be as single minded or vociferous in it's condemnation of the opposition in similar circumstances. In point of fact, they were, with far less justification. Diversity is a wonderful concept but it's challenging when you are trying to govern. Karl Rove is very, very good. We'll see if he's good enough to get GWB a real mandate. If he does, I predict that the ensuing internecine battles will be ferocious. The future of the Republican Party will be determined by who wins. Posted by: digby at May 18, 2003 06:23:08 PM
I have to agree that the original proposition was, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Anyone who thinks that the left is competely united hasn't been paying careful attention. Some data points: Sullivan and Insty had the temerity to criticize the Bush photo op on the aircraft carrier. Both were inundated with hate mail. If you disagree with the party line on freerepublic.com, you're instantly banned. The Republicans in the House of Representatives have been marching in lockstep since 1994. For the most part, Bush gets exactly what he wants from that institution. Various elements of the left completely disagreed on the need for the Iraq war. Did anyone on the right? Few on the right criticize Bush for anything, despite the fact that there are a number of valid targets, including the economy and the Patriot Act. About the only thing that the left is fairly well united on is that they dislike Bush's policies. That's hardly surprising, considering the nature of those policies. Daschle is often criticized on lefty blogs. I don't think I've ever seen a link to the Democratic Underground at any of the prominent lefty blog sites. That doesn't mean it's never happened, but it's pretty damn rare. What's funny is that evidence of lefty bloggers criticizing other lefties is presented as evidence that we're all being made to tow [sic] the line when, in reality, it's evidence that lefties, in fact, often disagree with one another. As already pointed out, a united left would have elected Al Gore. A united Senate left would have blocked the nomination of John Ashcroft. A united Senate left would have drastically altered or blocked the massive tax cuts. It's only recently that Senate and House Democrats finally got their shit together and started behaving like a true opposition party. It remains to be seen how long that will last. As for the bloggers on the left, they've never been in lockstep and they never will be. For the bloggers on the right, it depends on whether they're conservative, Republican or libertarian. Which of these groups marches in lockstep is left as an exercise to the reader. Posted by: PaulB at May 18, 2003 06:23:22 PM
Oh, and if you want "beautiful prose stylists," might I suggest you check out Dwight Meredith at http://www.pla.blogspot.com/ or Jeanne D'Arc at http://www.bodyandsoul.blogspot.com/ or even Digby at http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/. And while you'are at Digby's, check out the comments from "The Farmer" (http://www.enetation.co.uk/acomments.php?user=digby&commentid=94121490&usersite=#2775) Now *that's* style! As already noted above, Insty is not exactly a stylist since he, like Atrios, posts news links with minimal commentary. Den Beste is noted for his turgid and bloated prose. It's a style, but I don't think I'd call it "beautiful." Sullivan can do well when he chooses to, but more often than not, he doesn't choose to. The simple truth, though, is that good writing is not limited to those of a certain ideology and it's foolish to imply that. Posted by: PaulB at May 18, 2003 06:29:59 PM
David Ehrenstein, see how fast you catagorized me? That was my point, this has all become too personal for some folks, and their anger clouds their vision. Patriot act, capital punishment, military invasions, do you really imagine those things are whimsical, and not acts of a war that we here did not choose, but that was chosen for us by people who would shoot you as quickly as they would me? And how is your "making common cause" with your fellow-believers any different than righties commonly choosing to support the president of the USA in wartime? Saying you are "leaderless" is a personal comment, not a truth that applies to your political movement. The word "leader" bothers me, too, if that makes you feel any better, it's just that there are those times, you know, when a lot is at stake. I hope it isn't always thus, as I'm sure you do, too. And, thanks for reading my post. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 18, 2003 06:40:42 PM
I thought conservatives, if they seem to be in agreement on most issues ("lock-step"), it is because they have a leader, and have formed a consensus about the wisdom of following him for as long as he makes generally good sense on matters of concern to the nation and the world. Just a question... Was this post chaneling the ghost of Les Aspin, who could famously write a press release faster than he could think when he was in Congress? Conservatives only appear to be in lockstep because they're in lockstep. But liberals are really in lockstep because... Drumroll... None of them support the current conservative. Hi-yo! Posted by: Rick at May 18, 2003 06:45:11 PM
You are SOOOOO right Patrick, it amazes me how lockstep the lieberals are. Because of that, I have to ask though, don't you think that is a GOOD thing? I mean, all of us on the right know the left is incapable of understanding why we support, work with, and honor Rev. Moon, for instance. A few of these tin foil hat lefty's think that this passage, from the 1970’s congressional investigation of Moon, should be noticed and dealt with, since we are helping Moon's organization reach its goals, it follows they will think we shouldn't support Moon. Read this. Quoting 1978 congressional investigation: I ask you fellow righties, is there ANY reason we should wonder why we follow a party/movement which works with Moon? I mean, just because he claims to be the messiah, says he has visions/plans to control the world, is manipulating the UN for his own purposes...doesn't mean we on the right shouldn't work with his group, you know, to help them along, is it? quoting: Why is the Republican Party working hand in glove with Moon front groups? The partnership stems largely from Moon’s phenomenal ability to make inroads in GOP and Religious Right circles. Despite his unorthodox theological views – Moon teaches that he is the new Messiah, sent by God to complete the failed mission of Jesus – Moon has had little difficulty penetrating the upper echelons of American conservatism. While a number of Republican-aligned private organizations have promoted President George W. Bush’s religion funding scheme, only Moon won an official relationship with the Republican leadership to rally grassroots forces on behalf of the "faith-based" summit. This enhanced status enabled him to do grassroots political organizing – and religious recruitment – with the apparent blessing of Bush and his GOP allies in Congress..... "Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives," Clarkson said." To show just how nutty the left is, some of them would think that Poppy Bush shilling for True Father is a bad thing. How dumb is that? Does anyone think Poppy and Bar would help Moon gain respectability WORLD WIDE if they thought he was anything other than a 'good conservative?' I don't think so, or Poppy wouldn't have called Moon, "the man with the vision," if that were true, do you? quoting the Washington Post 1996: quoting: It's like this Patrick, the lefties don't know our whole movement has drawn its strength from Moon’s money and organization for years. We sure don't want the lefty bloggers to change and spill the beans, do we? I don't think people are smart enough to figure out how much we depend on True Father on their own, they sure haven’t figurered it out so far. Heck, most people we have fooled into supporting us don’t know what or who we stand with/for...do we want them to figure it out? You and I both know that the razor thin election of 2000 wouldn't have been close had it not been for True Father financing our conservative movement with billions of dollars over the last couple decades. Face it, Bush would NOT be president if it weren't for True Father's support. NO Moon No Bush. Period. It wouldn't have happened. So, do we want to have some out of 'lockstep' lefty blogger making a big deal out the fact that in the seventies and beyond, Moon bragged about how presidents would be required to come to him for power? We know that is true now, at least for the republican party. That almost slipped into people’s knowledge when Moon printed, produced and distributed 30 million of our ‘free thinking’ non-lockstep, voter guides in ’88, free of charge. Didn't cost Poppy a cent. The next thing you know, just because True Father has a checkered past, instead of calling us the party who is in judgement of character, they will be calling us the party “full of characters.” Hahaha Father is driving our country towards a sort of theocratic fascism, and we sure don't want ANYONE spilling the beans to American public about it. Especially when we are helping him. No way. Next thing you know those closed minded, lockstep lefties, will be calling us hypocrites, or something ridiculous like that. Taking into account that all of Moon's followers have one goal, to wrench control of the world by using the media and to influence/infiltrate government, don't you think people would become spooked if they knew Bush named a 'long time Moon operative,' David Caprara, to head VISTA, our country’s volunteer agency? You can read about Caprara here: Or don't you think they might have second thoughts about Bush giving True Father’s front group, Free Teens, 475 grand to teach our kids about sexual abstinence? Whoa, have you ever read any of True Father’s thoughts on sex? I don't think everyday folks will understand. Oh MY!!! What would happen if the country found out about this?!!! Read that link. How are we gonna keep people fooled into thinking we are the more 'patriotic' party when we work with, aid, and empower a man who has given billions to North Korea to help keep that communist country afloat? Now how would that look on our resume? Moon has purchased submarines for NK, for gosh sakes. I can see the lefty blogs now, "Party of Patriotism works with Man who helps keep communist dictator’s regime afloat while critcizing others for being 'soft’ on our enemies." Wouldn't look good. That is before they get to the part about empowering a man who claims to be the messiah, whose group has used lying and what former members call 'mind control techniques' to disrupt families all over the world.... remember, we are trying to tell people we are "Family Values" Christians. That's won't look good constantly honoring Moon. Letting that cat out of the bag would be as stupid as having ALL of the conservative leadership go on FOX and bow before their 'savior' Moon. None of them would be where they are without him, NONE of them, but wee don't want the country to know that. With True father’s help and guidance, it took us at least twenty years to take over the republican party and now the world, why should we take any chances? Keep those lefties following their leaders. We can call ourselves anything, (Scarborouh calls himself a moderate, Fox says its "balanced") but in fact, we all know we are the extremist element of the party from decades ago. Why do you think we hid all the loonies during our 2000 convention? Didn't want to make the same mistakes of the past where we let these idiots know what we really stood for, did we? We know we have to deceive people, if you want the truth out there, you are making a big mistake. Look at what Barry Goldwater said, would you like it if he won this fight?? I don't think so, the country wouldn't be going where it is now if he did. Thank goodness people like Goldwater have been purged from the party. Just read this nonsense, if you think I am kidding. Thankfully he was completely unsuccessful in this effort. If people knew this: we'd be in deep doo doo, so let's keep the lefty's walking in lockstep with their leaders, sleeping dog lies and all that stuff.... We have perpetrated one of the biggest frauds on any population in history, we have millions who think they came to be 'conservatives' by thinking for themselves. haha We all know that is not true and they have been manipulated, no one in their right mind thinks Sean Hannity came up with his views by hearing all sides of issues honestly, that’s nonsense. hahaha That's ridiculous. Look, follow True Father's advice in the last sentence of this quote from a 1976 Time Magazine and we might get by all this: Quoting Moon: The present U.N. must be annihilated by our power. That is the stage for Communists. We must make a new U.N. You heard it from True Father, be thankful we have the conservatives to use as a vehicle and, "shut your mouth tight." That is our motto. If none of that convinces you, what would happen if some lefty blogger showed people this quote of Moon's?(below) The first step is to get people to accept True Father, mainstream him, and we on the right have done too much toward that goal to blow it all on some open minded lefties now. I mean we can try and hide behind names like ’libertarian’ but the fact is we are rightwing, support the Bush agenda, we are extreme to the thinking world of just a couple decades ago, and we are getting what we want, so why blow it? Quoting Moon: Now, "Shut your mouth tight!" Posted by: Fred Flowers at May 18, 2003 06:46:01 PM
"do you really imagine those things are whimsical, and not acts of a war that we here did not choose, but that was chosen for us by people who would shoot you as quickly as they would me?" What makes you think I regard them as whimsical? And yes, Karl Rove would shoot you as quickly as he would me, were you to get in his way. Now here'sa pop quiz for you. Why did we overthorw Saddam? A) Because his Weapons of Mass Destruction were poised to strike at the American Heartland? B) Because he's really Osama Bin Ladin in disguise. C) To establish a power base in the Middle East and control its oil supplies. D) To liberate the oppressed Iraqi people and offer them with the Shining Truth of Democracy Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 06:49:12 PM
Rick, good one, my attempt at peaceful, non-confrontational language has been exposed. What bothers you, perhaps, is that Bush has simplified the case so well, that he seems to stand for "good", and so anyone who opposes him on anything, has to challenge his entire premise-of-being, which tosses them into the bag with all sorts of real evildoers. Conscientious liberals don't appreciate that, and I can't say I blame them. The discourse could use more nuance. But to say liberals are in lockstep because they don't support the conservative president misses the point of the complaint, the complaint, specifically, is that lefties oppose Bush on EVERTYTHING automatically--because he is Bush. This is the perception on the right, and as with most cliches, there is some truth to it. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 18, 2003 06:59:17 PM
Buddy, perhaps you can point out to us something we DON'T support Bush on that we should, being liberals. I support his support of the assault weapons ban. Apart from that, you seem annoyed we don't make our bones by supporting some of his more extravagent wing-nuttery as a proffer; like the tax cuts or the police state or the war with the shifting meaning. By the way, are Republicans now officially in or out of the nation building club? Posted by: Rick at May 18, 2003 07:07:09 PM
David Ehrenstein, E. None of the Above, although elements of A, C, and D all qualify, and B might have a grain of truth as well. I know that's not the answer YOU came up with, but that is another topic altogether. Posted by: Ron at May 18, 2003 07:24:13 PM
"Patriot act, capital punishment, military invasions, do you really imagine those things are whimsical, and not acts of a war that we here did not choose, but that was chosen for us by people who would shoot you as quickly as they would me?" Whimsical? No. Irrelevant to the "war on terror?" Yes. Posted by: PaulB at May 18, 2003 07:29:41 PM
You're a hard man, David Ehrenstein. I don't think I can persuade you. But I appreciate your efforts to argue your case, and running Karl Rove into the spot I had picked out for "terrorist" was nifty on your part. To me, the right answer to your quiz, terms interpreted broadly, is "all four." C) doesn't bother me as much as it does you, because I actually do think this country's political system, in the Mid East configuration coming, is a vast improvement over Iraq's previous. If we want to avoid another world war down the road, then someone better establish control over the world's gasoline tank. You folks on the left have the important job now of making sure the benefits flow properly, not that they go where there were going previous to the liberation. that would be perverse, unless you don't accept that the Saddam regime was bad for the Iraqi people. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 18, 2003 07:33:23 PM
Lefties are always automatically (lockstepishly) against Bush; his world view is so different from theirs that he apparently is a sort of psychological threat to them, on a personal level. As in, if he is right, then they are not just wrong, but very, very wrong. But yet, he is always genial, as if to purposely hide the nature of this rather mortal threat. So, he is doubly hated even more for having and using these democratic personal skills. Turn that around, and it reads: The inability to see yourselves, big as life, in what you're criticizing the left for is downright delicious. Pure entertainment. Why the tax cut is dumb -- Complete with purty pictures! Posted by: Julia Grey at May 18, 2003 07:40:41 PM
Neither the right of left is unified, again, look at many of the treads dealing with economics especially on FR, and one would be quite surprised how anti corporate many self styled conservatives are. This is how I break down the groups within both parties in the real world, and my guess at their percentage in both parties. DEMOCRATS 25% 15-20% 15% New Dealers 10%-15% Working class conservatives REPUBLICAN 25% Working class conservatives- 15% Country Club Republicans This is what people thought of as the GOP before the 60s. They are very conservative on economic issues, and more moderate on social issues. This group is also highly educated as well, also the oldest of the core GOP groups. Many of their children who have a smiliar financial staure are either professionals who vote Democratic or are Libertarian leaning. 10% moderates. This along with the Country club relublicans used to be the core group of the GOP before the late 60s. This is where the few remaing so called liberal Republicans are. This group tends to be conservative on fiscal issues, though not nearly as pro corporate as the country club Republicans, and on social issues they are moderate-liberal, though not as liberal on social issues as the Democratic moderates. This group is the group that has the weakest link to the GOP 15% Libertarians This is probably the youngest, and most mis understood group within the GOP collation. The media also paints them as moderates, since they are pro choice on abortion, and often quite lax in morals, but that is due in part to their libertarian nature, on issues like Gov spending and welfare and regulations, are go much further than other Republican groups in wanting these items eliminated. Posted by: John B at May 18, 2003 07:55:50 PM
Rick, I guess I do mean the wing-nuttery. When I hear 'police state' I can't help but wonder what rhetoric you have maintained in reserve for use against something more sinister than the sunsetted Patriot Act--which I believe was a response to the domestic terrorism that you haven't seen much of lately. I think the 'war with the shifting meaning' is nice writing on your part, compliments, I can only say that Bush did take a huge chance, and the meaning of it will evolve, as you point out, for generations to come. He broke open the old system in the MidEast, and the outcome of it all is sort of up to us in this country. That's why I argue with you, Rick, and David, and PaulB--I hope the country can stay on message with this huge thing we've done, and not get it overly enmeshed with the race for the White House. The disproportionality of the stakes involved is one of the left's shortcomings, IMHO...it'll be the shitz fer all of us if it don't work out well for all the interested parties: Araby, Israel, USA, Eurasia, etc. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 18, 2003 07:58:02 PM
"Also, the Lefties have always been less willing to criticise one of their own even when they go against the orthodoxy for fear of losing power than Righties are (Clinton got no flack from the left for not blocking the execution of a retarded man, but Bush got raked by the right for signing a steel tariff bill and signing CFR, and more recently saying he'd sign an assault weappons ban renewal" This is patently incorrect in my opinion. As far as I have seen, right-wingers are VASTLY more likely to ignore obvious and glaring deficiencies with their candidates, so long as they win. Bush's blatant subservience to the evangelical Christian agenda is rarely discussed by conservative commentators anywhere, whereas Clinton's smallest missteps were roundly criticized by everyone inb the mass media. The amount of coverage merited by Clinton's overpriced haircut(!) absolutely dwarfs the amount of discussion resulting from the revelation that Bush was AWOL for more than a month from his Air National Guard duties and was never prosecuted, or that his much-ballyhooed warship landing actually delayed the ship unecessarily resulting in significant additional expense to the taxpayer. Posted by: Johan at May 18, 2003 08:03:11 PM
This is interesting. I post what I consider some pretty unremarkable observations, directed more at the right than the left, that are actually pretty complimentary of the left's ability to run politically-focused blogs. After links from "righties" such as the likes of Josh Claybourn, Charles Johnson, and Glenn Reynolds, the most powerful blogger of them all, I get about 20 responses, pretty much evenly balanced between libertarians/indepedents who don't wish to be too closely associated with the right and those who make the argument that the left indeed marches in lockstep. Faster than CalPundit and Atrios can click their heels, I get about 60 not terribly thoughtful comments savaging me for suggesting that the blogosphere Left might be more organized than the Right. The irony is rich here, folks. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 08:03:44 PM
Might part of the phenomenon be because, as someone whose name I cannot recall once said, conservatives these days are looking to win converts, while liberals are seeking to punish (or burn) heretics. Tell that to the Dixie Chicks Posted by: Patriotboy at May 18, 2003 08:11:22 PM
Hey, Patrick, at least you got lots of traffic for this. Remember, all PR is good as long they spell your name right! Posted by: Kevin Drum at May 18, 2003 08:15:22 PM
I agree with Johan. Recently, in Texas, the right cheated on the rules of disclosure during session in Congress. When the tables are turned, they are the first to scream "unfair". When they are unfair, they are also completely blind to it. This is, I believe, the birth of the term "Chickenhawk" It grew out of the right wing neo-cons and Bush supporters who ran from military service, but are so ready to spill everyone else's blood. Posted by: Druss at May 18, 2003 08:15:40 PM
"Not teribly thoughtful" yet "more organized." You've got a great career ahead of you as a Dick Cheney speechwriter, dear. "C) doesn't bother me as much as it does you, because I actually do think this country's political system, in the Mid East configuration coming, is a vast improvement over Iraq's previous." You mean there's an Iraqi Equivalent of Republicans and Democrats waiting in the wings? LOL! You obvioulsy know nothing about the Middle-East. But then neither does Dubbya. Yes there's no electricity, no water,no food, no medical supplies and a cholera epidemic has broken out. But not to worry -- we've brought them "Democracy"! "If we want to avoid another world war down the road, then someone better establish control over the world's gasoline tank." Take up the White Man's Lube Job as it were. "Don't forget to kick the tires, Ali!" " You folks on the left have the important job now of making sure the benefits flow properly, not that they go where there were going previous to the liberation. that would be perverse, unless you don't accept that the Saddam regime was bad for the Iraqi people." Now this is rich! You imagine that the Left has a role to play in the Virtual One-Party State now in power? The only role we're ever officially allotted is that of ideological punching-bag. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 08:18:22 PM
Um, Patrick, you thought your post was complimentary toward liberals? Huh? And "60 not terribly thoughtful" comments? Glad to hear you think so highly of anyone who disagrees with you. Posted by: Kevin Drum at May 18, 2003 08:18:32 PM
Mr. Ruffini- I agree. The Left is quite the monolithic juggernaut. For a really good example of the Left toeing the party line, perhaps you should wear an "I Love Ralph Nader" t-shirt to the Democratic convention. Feel the love that the Dems show to their ideological comrades! Jesus fucking Christ. Posted by: The Mighty Reason Man at May 18, 2003 08:26:08 PM
Good grief...you actually thought what you wrote was complimentary? And you thought that our responses were "not terribly thoughtful" and were "savaging you?" On what planet do you live? Patrick, you got quite a few thoughtful responses, including mine. Yes, I called your premise bullshit. I stand by that. But I explained precisely why it's bullshit and posted examples. Other liberals did the same. You may still disagree, but so far, you've done nothing to defend your original post and nothing to answer the objections that were raised except to dismiss them as "not terribly thoughtful." That's your prerogative, of course, but you aren't doing your point of view any favors by such a response. Posted by: PaulB at May 18, 2003 08:29:24 PM
From the Original: ...top "righties" — InstaPundit (France, nanotech, "crushing of dissent")... How soon they forget the most dreaded words in the blogosphere: "Bellesiles Update". OK, ditto to Kevin Drum - I don't see links to DU. And on this "we are diverse, but they are not" theme - I expect zebras look different to each other, but they don't to me. But who is the zebra? And can we talk about the moose? Posted by: Tom Maguire at May 18, 2003 08:45:48 PM
'''If "righty" bloggers are so free thinking, how come I haven't seen one discuss the merits of the House's (much better in my opinion) dividend tax reform compared to the Senate's much worse version?''' What about those lockstep lefty's on ANY subject that has to do with the budget? I mean if they had the guts they would post something on how great reaganomics and supply side economics is if they were free thinkers, like us. Why won't they post something like this, written by the architect of reaganonmics, David Stockman? Stockman knows more about how supply side and reaganomics works in the real world than anyone. See, I bet you won't see any lefty bloggers posting these quotes from Stockman on Clinton's budget proposal in 1993. They just can't tell genius when they see it. from New Perspective Magazine spring 1993. quoting David Stockman: In this regard, the full-throated anti-tax war cries emanating from the GPO since February 17 amount to no more than deceptive gibberish. Indeed, if Congressman Newt Gingrich and his playmates had the parental supervision they deserve, they would be sent to the nearest corner wherein the lodge their Pinocchio-sized noses until this adult task of raising taxes is finished. ... The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax-cutting that shattered the nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance, and their own culpability in it, ever since. Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom, while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit. .. To be sure, a version to higher taxes is usually a necessary, healthy impulse in a political democracy. But when the alternative becomes as self-evidently threadbare and groundless as has the `growth' argument, we are no longer dealing with legitimate skepticism but with what amounts to a demagogic fetish. .... Unfortunately, as a matter of hard-core political realism, the ritualized spending cut mantra of the GPO anti-taxers is equally vapid. Again, the historical facts are overwhelming. Ronald Reagan's original across-the-board income tax cut would have permanently reduced the federal revenue base by three percent of GNP. At a time when defense spending was being rapidly pumped up, and in a context in which the then `conservative' congressional majority had already decided to leave 90 percent of domestic spending untouched, the Reagan tax rate cut along would have strained the nation's fiscal equation beyond the breaking point. But no one blew the whistle. Instead, both parties succumbed to a shameless tax-bidding war that ended up doubling the tax cut to six percent of GNP--or slashing by nearly one-third the permanent revenue base of the United States government. While delayed effective dates and phase-ins postponed the full day of reckoning until the late 1980s, there is no gainsaying the fiscal carnage. As of August, 1981, Uncle Sam had been left to finance a 1980s-sized domestic welfare and state and defense build-up from a general revenue base that was now smaller relative to GNP than at any time since 1940! .... On the vast expanse of the domestic budget , then, `overspending' is an absolute myth. Our post-1981 mega-deficits are not attributable to it; and the GOP has neither a coherent program nor the political courage to attack anything but the most microscopic spending marginalia. It is unfortunate that having summoned the courage to face the tax issue squarely, President Clinton has clouded the debate with an excess of bashing the wealthy and an utterly unnecessary grab-bag of new tax and spending giveaways. But that can be corrected in the legislative process--and it in no way lets the Republicans off the hook. They led the Congress into a giant fiscal mistake 12 years ago, and they now have the responsibility to work with a President who is at least brave enough to attempt to correct it. --- David Stockman, OMB, Reagan 1981-85 Posted by: Fred Flowers at May 18, 2003 08:50:18 PM
Patrick R. -- you truly are a "beautiful prose stylist" BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!! Was that "thoughtful" enough for you bub? Posted by: pontificator at May 18, 2003 08:53:10 PM
When I hear 'police state' I can't help but wonder what rhetoric you have maintained in reserve for use against something more sinister than the sunsetted Patriot Act--which I believe was a response to the domestic terrorism that you haven't seen much of lately. Buddy, you're speaking of clinic bombings when you speak of domestic terrorism? Or you're speaking of 9/11 style terrorism? I didn't see "much" of it before 9/11; I haven't seen "much" of it since 9/11. Had there been "much" befoe 9/11 the Administration may not have been asleep at the switch when it did happen. If the "cure" that ended the "much" was the Iraq war, you have a mighty mighty short time frame my friend, and not much concern for Americans (and others) living outside the United States. Including the people we set "free" in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will give Bush credit for meeting Al Qaida's main demend, leaving the bases in Saudi Arabia. bin Laden wins. Good going, George. Posted by: Rick at May 18, 2003 09:25:16 PM
I am somewhat new to the blogosphere, and much enjoy going to the various sites to see what people are saying. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree, but rarely a day goes by that I don't find something interesting to read and think about. The biggest disappointment for me has been these comment sections. Instead of any rational and interesting argument about policy alternatives, all there seems to be are these sophomoric one-up-manship name calling games back and forth, first one post claiming somebody made a mistake when they said something, and then the snotty little response, invariably phrased in the "well, what about this..." style of who can score more points and pick more nits. Frankly, the upper middle class, over educated twitism that emanates from most of these pointless little squabbles gives me a pain in the lower regions. Doesn't anybody ever discuss the future? Left or right or in between, the past is done. It would be most appreciated if the contributors to these blogs could once in awhile stop playing gotcha and try to formulate some realistic policy options for where we are going. You certainly seem to have plenty of time to spare. Posted by: veryretired at May 18, 2003 09:32:58 PM
" lefty bloggers make the most of their limited traffic by being very party line on Bush and most domestic issues. " To have a party line, I'd have to have a party. The Democrats certainly aren't standing up for my values. In any case, "party line" has a precise meaning -- it's what the Communists told people to assert. I am not now nor have I ever been... As a liberal, yes, nearly everything that Bush does makes me furious. He sets himself up in direct opposition to the things that I believe in -- a cleaner environment, courtesy and consistency in our foreign affairs, even-handed enforcement of tax laws, ... it's a long list. I remember the Clinton years, when longtime conservatives nearly wept with rage at the mention of his name. It's hard when somebody antithetical to what you believe is right holds office. Hard-line opposition doesn't necessarily mean you're following somebody else's thinking; it can, instead, mean that the person you're opposed to is consistently opposite you on the intellectual spectrum. Posted by: Jonquil at May 18, 2003 09:45:08 PM
nice post... which planet does the author live on? sure isn't earth Posted by: tiny tim at May 18, 2003 10:12:29 PM
To tell if any comment is adding to a discussion, replace "Bush" with "Clinton" and "Left" with "Right." If it still makes sense, ignore it - it didn't have any meaning in the first place. Posted by: Irony at May 18, 2003 10:14:05 PM
Kevin, Re: your first post -- don't I know it! And about the "marching in lockstep" charge everyone seems to be seizing on -- read my post -- it's nowhere in there. I say that left-wing bloggers are more on message in toeing an anti-Bush "party line." So what? That's your fucking job! The job of the opposition is to oppose. Other than that, I'm perfectly aware that there's plenty of diversity on the Left. There are Trotskyites and Maoists. There's the Socialist Worker's Party, the Worker's World Party, the Greens, the non-Green Naderites and Deanites (the moderates!) thrown in for good measure. :) :) :) About all they share in common is their complete lack of a sense of humor. Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 18, 2003 10:18:27 PM
Patrick - Posted by: SamAm at May 18, 2003 10:20:56 PM
I would also like to add that I got this link from Instapundit, hardly my ideological twin. Furthermore, I am truly impressed by your ability to list the Socialist Workers Party as a member of the left, neglect the DLC (my branch) and labor, and then criticize US for not having a sense of humor. Maoists? WTF? Isn't that the corollary of the "whoever mentions Hitler first looses" rule? It should be. Posted by: SamAm at May 18, 2003 10:29:35 PM
the revelation that Bush was AWOL for more than a month from his Air National Guard duties and was never prosecuted Actually it was more like a YEAR. Mind-boggling, isn't it? People can't believe it. They say, "If there was any truth to that, surely I would have heard about it before now!" Posted by: Julia Grey at May 18, 2003 10:31:19 PM
This generated some interesting posts. Tom Maguire's zebra comment was great, but Digby's personal ad cracked me up. The self importance of all of this is what keeps me from ever having a blog of my own. Posted by: pj at May 18, 2003 10:44:16 PM
we on the left have no sense of humor? I have 3 words for you: Clenis™ Clenis™ Clenis™ you are so irony-impaired that you just don't get it at all. Posted by: tena at May 18, 2003 10:50:14 PM
"I know you are, but what are we?" Repeat about 60 times, and that summarizes the discussion here. Posted by: Ibn Battuta at May 18, 2003 10:52:15 PM
I think Patrick has it about right, except for the: "nonliberals are more likely to find opportunities for social change and self-fulfillment outside of government," part. That line was funnier than ten episodes of Monty Python. LOL!! Posted by: Hesiod at May 18, 2003 11:04:15 PM
"Other than that, I'm perfectly aware that there's plenty of diversity on the Left. There are Trotskyites and Maoists. There's the Socialist Worker's Party, the Worker's World Party, the Greens, the non-Green Naderites and Deanites (the moderates!) thrown in for good measure." You're forgetting the Gay Anarchists! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 18, 2003 11:05:33 PM
"The irony is rich here, folks." And the more they protest, the richer it gets... Posted by: Gander at May 18, 2003 11:45:25 PM
"Ronald Reagan's original across-the-board income tax cut would have permanently reduced the federal revenue base by three percent of GNP. At a time when defense spending was being rapidly pumped up, and in a context in which the then `conservative' congressional majority had already decided to leave 90 percent of domestic spending untouched, the Reagan tax rate cut along would have strained the nation's fiscal equation beyond the breaking point. But no one blew the whistle." Thank you, Dr. Krug--er--Stockman. Y'know, when the Keynesian economists agree with the libertarian economists it might just behoove someone in power to listen. Posted by: John Hackworth at May 18, 2003 11:48:15 PM
"About all they share in common is their complete lack of a sense of humor. " Oh, I dunno. I'd imagine we all suppose you're pretty amusing. Trotskyites... sheeit, you actually read that propaganda crap they gave you about THE LEFT? LOL! Posted by: Thersites at May 18, 2003 11:51:39 PM
Okay, now I am offended. The left has no sense of humor? We've got the Daily Show and the Onion, buddy. Doonesbury is not what it once was but still much preferable to Mallard Fillmore. There's P.J. O'Rourke, I guess. Dennis Miller.... Unless my memory is more selective than I think it is, it's not even close to a fair fight. Also, in listing the factions of the left, you forgot the People's Popular Front of Judea. Posted by: Katherine at May 19, 2003 12:03:39 AM
Stepped away, so am no longer timely, but, Rick, Wasn't the 9/11 event large enough to merit trying to keep a repeat from happening? In minimizing its effect, you are able to assert that the subsequent military reactions were not neccessary, and that then allows you to assert further that the entire campaign against terrorism is nothing much more than an enormous Bush family entertainment spectacle. That's a lotta leaps, my friend, and they all originate from the extremely subjective notion that the 9/11 attacks weren't really all that devastating (as in, maybe not to you, personally). And, per your quotation marks around "free" (concerning the Afghan and Iraqi people): Were the 'little people' better off under the Taliban and the Baathists? If it were you, or your sister, say, living there as natives, would you prefer the status quo ante-bellum? These are simple "yes/no" questions, if you'll indulge me; I'm honestly trying to comprehend your viewpoint. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 12:14:46 AM
Buddy, do you really think a series of "yes/no" questions can really help us understand the incredibly complicated situation we're now involved in? I wasn't oppsed to the war because I thought we'd lose, or because I didn't despise Saddam. I was opposed to the war becauseI didn't hear enough sober discussion from the WH of what we would need to do afterwards. I mean, damn, this administration CAMPAIGNED on "no nation building." Iraq needs massive "nation building" NOW and I don't see it. So go vote Republican, fine. But can at least one Repupbican tell me honestly how we're now safer from terrorism than we were befor the Iraqi adventure? I mean, please? Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 12:24:03 AM
O'Rourke is a conservative, though I doubt he feels much at home with GWB. Also, don't forget Rhymes With Orange, Weekend Update and occasionaly the Boondocks. Posted by: SamAm at May 19, 2003 12:25:07 AM
"FR is embarrassing on two counts: First, because of the high proportion of wackos present (eg, the folks who think GWB is complicit in a Mexican "invasion" of the United States" I post on FR using lonewacko_dot_com, and I believe that there's certainly a movement by the Mexican government to "invade" the U.S. Not militarily, but demographically. And, I believe that many U.S. politicians are complicit in Mexico's attempts. It's easy to dismiss something you know nothing about. Perhaps you'd like to do a bit more research (for instance, reading things that Mexican officials have said more or less admitting their plans) before dismissing the "invasion." See http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000487.html#000487 http://www.amconmag.com/03_10_03/feature.html y mucho mas... Posted by: Lonewacko at May 19, 2003 12:32:28 AM
Patrick: In your responses here, you basically are saying that those on the Left who disagree with your assertion that there isn't much diversity of thought on the Left are proving your point. Sorry, but that is nonsense. Using your line of logic, the only acceptable answer for a liberal to give on this topic and show some independence in thought (under your terms) would be for such a respondent to say "yes, Patrick, you are right, we all march in lockstep". That's a clever rhetorical move, I'll give you that, but it's just that, a clever move, not proof of a substantive point. Also, I agree with the poster that stated your use of Maoists as an example of the Left in America falls into the "whoever mentions Hitler first loses" rule. And please spare us the "it was just a joke" line. If someone said that about you and Hitler and said it was "just a joke", you would (rightfully) tell that person that they aren't funny, and they just totally undermined their own argument. Posted by: Mark at May 19, 2003 12:38:10 AM
Geez, lonewacko Out of three possible confirmatory sources, two of them have your own freaking nom de plume in the URL and the other is a clearly paritisan site. I see you have well-earned the 'wacko' moniker. Learn the basics of research, dumbass, and then lecture us. Christ, you righties make a pisspoor showing of yourselves. Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 12:52:23 AM
Buddy Larsen: You've asked an honest question. I'm fairly confident in saying that your arguments are rather well-traveled territory for those who read viewpoints in favor of the war, but who at the same time, don't share those views. There is, in fact, no opposition to the "war on terrorism" from those on the left. It is specifically the recent action in Iraq which is opposed, and specifically on the grounds that there is no correlation between 9/11 and the former Iraqi government. In short, the view is that this correlation is entirely contrived (i.e., the US government is lying about it). It certainly is a wonderful thing to see people who have been freed from oppression. The harsh criticism that has been levelled at this action, however, is that this was not the reason given by the US government for taking this action in the first place. Rather, the war was presented as necessary by the US government because of a real and imminent threat to public safety because of the Iraqi government's possession and ability to deploy WMD. The evidence of WMD was also the argument given by the US government in obtaining support, most notably from the UK. This argument was given in a dramatic presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN, a presentation which included a series of photographs purporting to be direct evidence in the hands of the US government. Every military action involves risk, as we all know, and in this case, it involved an additional risk of the significant loss of international influence, especially in the wake of the unilateralist and rather high-handed approach to the situation. This international reaction was made more understandable in the context of the unwillingness of the US government early in its administration to listen to or consult with a number of key allies on various international agreements. In the absence of the discovery of WMD, which should be quite easy given clear evidence presented by the US government, the reaction you see is one of outrage and betrayal, that the US government is being duplicitous in its motives. The Belgian foreign minister put it best when he said that the motive behind the war was one of simple muscle flexing, a large and assertive power exercising its influence just to show that it can. Understanding the US government's motive in this context explains much of the reaction to this war as an action by a unilateralist megapower, bent on asserting its will without regard to others, and without regard to its consequences. A common reaction to this has been fear among allies, and a concern for a loss of influence in the long-term on the part of those who live here. I hope this writing has made sense. Posted by: Spinning Tops at May 19, 2003 01:00:43 AM
God, this wass an amusing post and comments - the left toes a party line and has no sense of humor? That cracks me up. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest Posted by: Gary Denton at May 19, 2003 01:04:22 AM
Stepped away, so am no longer timely, but, Rick, Wasn't the 9/11 event large enough to merit trying to keep a repeat from happening? Absolutely. Which is what is so damned infuriating AND terrifying about the right. 9/11 had, as far as anyone can tell NOTHING to do with Iraq. Nothing. The response of this administration has been lies, deceit and obfuscation with heaping helpings of righties calling other Americans traitors. It stinks to high heaven and it's going to make all a lot less safe. It's MADE us all a lot less safe. The other shoes are dropping, but we refuse to hear them. Posted by: Rick at May 19, 2003 01:28:06 AM
Thersites, as far as I'm concerned, you've just made the best argument I've seen on this site against the WHs' terrorist-handling: The backward-leaning prep for what comes after major hostilities end. A sin of omission, rather than commission, I guess would be the defense line, but, as you know, that's the theory of republics, as opposed to pure democracies, sometimes, when the situation demands it, your executive branch has to operate with info it can't share with you, and thus may have to manipulate public opinion. Luckily, if we detect it, and it seems to've been wrong in the broad context of the circumstances, well, we just vote 'em out, first chance. That's the beauty of the system we are trying to present to the peoples under totalitarianism in Araby. As I was trying to say earlier, all we here wanted, and it was wrong of us, was "peace" of any sort until the you-know-what started emanating from those lands. The terrorism is what started the war. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 01:29:04 AM
The left in America is dead. The final nail in the coffin came flying in on Sept 11 2001. This is not a 50/50 country. The 2002 election showed a 8 % majority for Republicans/Libertarians. The majority will only get more substantial in the years to come. As an Ayn Rand Republican, I will continue to pull the lever for the GOP in the future, because it IS the future. Posted by: John Galt at May 19, 2003 01:40:25 AM
When liberals controlled both houses of Congress, the Executive Branch, and half the Judicial, I heard alot more discontent from conservatives. Now that conservatives are in power, liberals are spending much of their time in anxiety as they watch what they've built being torn apart. I think you would be too. That is, if you conservatives every did anything positive. :) -Ken Posted by: Ken Kinder at May 19, 2003 01:51:31 AM
Buddy: Thanks. You know, I do believe we're all Americans first, or should be. I'm from an old NYC family myself--had two cousins working in the first tower, and one in the second, and two cousins as firefighters responding. One would be dead if he hadn't switched schedules with a friend out of pure coincidence. The friend didn't make it. The rest of the family was safe, thank god. I gotta tell you, though, I still don't see how invading Iraq has prevented the ability of the crazed Islamists from attacking us. From everything I've read, it wasn't the secular Baathists, but the maniacal Wahhabists who were behind it. And now they might estabilsh a foothold in a chaotic postwar Iraq. Why weren't we told what rebuilding Iraq would cost? Why isn't this administration telling us the whole picture of what went down on 9/11? I want Afghanistan and Iraq rebuilt NOW with governments who can actually address the probability of renewed anti-American terrorism. And I don't see this commitment from an administration that specifically said during the campaign that it wouldn't get into "nation building." Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 02:05:14 AM
John Galt: As a self-identified "Ayn Rand" anything, you're a nitwit. You know, fear the man who's only read one book? "John Galt" indeed. Go get hooked on Star Trek, please, or better yet, read an actual "book." John Galt... fanboy wannabee child. You're supposed to grow out of this idiot cultish phase. Good luck to you when you get a clue. Find me, Thersites, waiting for you on the other side, little one. Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 02:12:53 AM
Well, spinning tops, that makes two of us reiterating well-travelled arguments--and in each case, we were responding only to points raised by earlier posts, and curtailed ourselves for brevity. Everything you say is pretty much true, insofar as the nuggests of fact inside your language. Where you see the damned lies of a perfidious administration, I see an administration maneuvering the nation onto a war footing that a very large part of the populace wanted to fight. Any maneuvering done probably was, as you accuse, in order to mute the voices of an opposition that, while only about a quarter of the population, was--is--powerful. I would be a puritan, too, on this matter of government deceit, if I didn't see it as necessary to get the war machine out of home port, to fight the war that, as you say, would've been "just" had there been any connection between the terrorists and the Saddam regime. Ok, I won't list all the connections that've been outed in the news already, as they're mostly circumstantial, but will you admit that the two organizations, al Qaeda and Baath, helped each other on the prima-facie basis alone that they had similar goals, similar in the sense that both had hostile ambitions related to the geographical spread of their own fascistically-organized totalitarian control over a region that contains a large portion of the planet's petroleum reserves? And that this oil item, so well-used to beat up the premise of the war, actually has veto-power over the way-of-life for most of the planet? Many third world debtor nations have little chance to generate self-sustaining economies at $25/bbl, but can make it at the sustained $15/bbl that will come out of this war, if we can win the damn thing. And then there's the Saddam effect on the Israel/Palestine war. As far as the connection, think of Germany and Japan in WWII. They did little together, they may as well have not even known the other existed, yet they split the allied war effort, and helped each other enormously, thereby. Had we fought them one-at-a-time, whoever came second, with their slave empire by then firmly entrenched, ready and stockpiled, would've bled us far, far more than as it happened. We might not have even won. These things can be lost. We oughtta keep that in mind, spinning tops. Thanks for reading, I know I'm too long-winded. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 02:16:46 AM
Thersites, thanks for your kind response, I know it's getting late so I won't keep you, except to opine that your frustration is entirely normal, everything does drag, and the uncertainty is nasty. Time is that 4th dimension, just because it's invisible don't mean it ain't as certain as concrete, and the things we've been fussing at each other over are just flat gonna take more time to resolve. The prez has mentioned, repeatedly, that this is going to take time, a lot of time, and there would be ups and downs along the way. The thing I try to keep in mind is that, as you know from from your personal experiences in NYC, we didn't choose this, this was shoved down our throats, and now we have to somehow cope. Patience is a virtue, as that old saying goes. Insofar as your closing paragraph, remember, the promise not to "nation-build" was a campaign promise...and you know that the world changed on all that about a year later. Would you prefer a prez that slavishly kept out-of-date campaign promises even after the entire landscape had shifted in the other direction? By the way, I'm glad I'm not John Galt, I think you probably retired his keyboard. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 02:39:16 AM
Buddy: Yeah, we're just spinning around. Fair enough. I don't like being "manuevered," as you put it, though. I feel bamboozled, and I'm not happy about it. I have actually been a longtime supporter of regime change in Irag, for humanitarian reasons. Saddam was bad news. But why couldn't we have a debate on this issue? Why do Americans need to be manuevered? I mean, think on this: if we can be manuevered in one direction, why not in another? Isn't his a bad precedent? Should the decision to go to war be handled like it was a political campaign? I just don't think it should. Anyway, best regards. Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 02:42:31 AM
Good questions, Thersites, wish I knew the answers. Bamboozled is not a good thing to be, but it IS a pretty hilarious word. Look, maybe your beef with this administration is at least partly aesthetic...you know, a New yorker having to listen to a west Texas twang...you could maybe get hypnotized on your own irritation, and miss some of the key content (happens to me when I listen to Hillary)? But, for instance, you were in favor of regime change, say that was worth 100 points to you, on humanitarian grounds--I agree, once you start empathizing with those poor people, it can reach deep into you. So, you got the 100 points. How many points do you subtract, now, for your disagreement with the atmospherics of how it was done? Just a little mental game. Well, hope things go well for you, Thersites...for now, I gotta drag it to the sack, old guy's all writ out. G'nite. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 03:23:03 AM
Are Lefties more in step with each other "...because nonliberals are more likely to find opportunities for social change and self-fulfillment outside of government?" I think there is some truth to this, but more so, which you hinted at, there is a large block of people (libertarians) who could go either Right or Left and, at this time, find themselves with Conservatives. Thus it appears we have all this variety of opinion coming from the Right. Posted by: emly at May 19, 2003 04:42:05 AM
whoops ... Posted by: bandwidth thief at May 19, 2003 05:07:02 AM
wow, there're a lot of comments on here and i sure as hell can't read 'em all... but, i have to say this: for the longest time i've thought i was a socialist. until, of course, i real;ized that the reason i wanted to drum bush (and much of the rest of the GOP) out of office is because i am a PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE (say it with me). i actually believe in smaller government (anyone who thinks bush adheres to this is fucking blind) and i think that things like legitimizing something like gay marriage is a step in the right direction of kicking government out of out bedrooms and our personal lives...i am totally dumbfounded as to why any conservative (or person who even vaguely believes in fiscal responsibilty!) would support our president. baffling. totally fucking baffling. (oh yeah and if integrity matters, let's have him account for his missing 9 months in the national guard. what the fuck? do you think you or i could get away with that shit? hells no!)...goddamn. *sigh* to be honest, being a consevative is gonna mean voting for a democrat (actually, howard dean seems to me a good candidate for principled conservatives - and i think it's telling that the Dem establishment is attacking him as being extreme leftist - it reminds me of myself! people mistake me for a socialist because i believe in less intrusive government - how fucked up is that! we need to reclaim this shit!) in the coming election... forgive me: i've been drinking. but it doesn't make me less right! Posted by: disraeli at May 19, 2003 05:18:49 AM
Is it possible that the righty blogoverse seems so diverse because 99.99% of righties do not blog? And the .01% that do are not the dittoheads that we lefties think of when we think of conservatives? It's laughable to me to even consider that there is a great deal of breadth in conservative argument in this country, when MSGOP and Faux News are nothing but shills for the Bush administration, and every local and national talk radio show--NPR excepted--sounds like Rush and O'Reilly. Among all of the media--which is how most of us on the left learn about the right--there is no dissent permitted. Period. Dissenters are shouted down, dismissed out of hand, and ignored. I would begin to believe that the right was not in lock step if I saw from the right any serious analysis of George (the W stands for "Whopper!") Bush's foreign policy or economic policy, and the constant misrepresentations, dissemblance, and outright lies emanating from the WH about them. I would begin to believe the the right was not in lock step if I saw any condemnation of Santorum's or Cubin's bigotry. And I'm not talking about the blogoverse here--Sullivan spoke out against Santorum, sure, but even those Republicans who "damned Santorum with faint praise" about his "inclusiveness" were pilloried by the base for not fully rallying 'round the man's bigotry. And to the poster upthread who said Republicans were the future: Remember that George (the W stands for "Whopper!") Bush campaigned from the center, and lost the popular vote to a more liberal opponent (not to mention Nader's millions). You're correct that 9/11 was a wake-up call: It pointed out how unprepared we were to handle terrorism (and you may ask yourself why Cheney, et. al., decided to ignore the Hart-Rudman recommendations months earlier, implementaion of which may have stopped some of the 19, in favor of their own panel because those wimpy liberals obviously can't speak to defense matters). But there have been repeated wake-up calls since: Ashcroft's out-of-control DOJ; the administration's manufacture of intelligence and manipulation of public opinion; tax cuts that have simply not done a damn thing for the economy (and don't try to tell me that the third time's a charm, either. Interestingly, no one on the right seems bothered by how casually Bush has abandoned his campaign pledge to cut only $1.3T in taxes, leaving social security untouched and spending the rest of the surplus--remember the surplus?--on education and health care--again, all lies!). The American people are starting to wake up: We spend billions doing half-assed nation-building abroad while this administration kills two million jobs at home. Bush says he wants health care and education for Iraqis, but he refuses to fund those programs at home. The pounding you hear in your head is the rightist media marching in lock step with this adminstration. The truth, and the votes in 2004, is somewhere else. Posted by: folkbum at May 19, 2003 06:33:32 AM
If there is anything that is fractured, it is the blogosphere. Thank God for that. I would like to add to my original comment about individualism in the blogosphere. I think there are two categories of people who frequent blogs, the opinionated and the venting. The opinionated are those that believe they have something very unique to add to the debate. The venters as seeking an alternative media to release their anger at a wolrd gone mad. I believe that Patrick is observing these two groups. Right now the Left is very frustrated with President Bush, so I would assume that there is much more venting happening on that side of the spectrum. The Right/Libertarians can be angry venters too, but right now they are more angry at terrorists. However don't put it paste them to take a swipe leftward. Venter vebiage: Bush Lackey vs. Saddamite appeaser. Also I think the fact that the Right is in power has a lot to do with it. The Right thinkers are entertaining thoughts of how to dispense that power to advance their agenda. The Left is in opposition mode. Posted by: shadowtax at May 19, 2003 07:34:02 AM
I read a few on the way down, but they reinforced what I was ready to say when I came here: One group of bloggers+readers tends to deal with facts, concepts, ideas and reality. The other group of bloggers+all tends to Which would YOU prefer to read and deal with? Ain't no big Eye Opener... Posted by: Eye Opener at May 19, 2003 08:58:53 AM
Good anaysis, shadowtax. I agree, the basic category breakdown can split upper/lower as cleanly as right/left. One group has righties and lefties with ideas, analysis, questions, observations, and a desire to communicate. These people seem to value trying to ascertain truth over the maintenance of group cohesion. The other group, also composed of both righties and lefties, tosses words like hand grenades, has little regard for the facts, is shameless when caught misrepresenting, and values nothing higher than group cohesion, even at the expense of increasing the influence of their ideas. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 09:21:54 AM
"David Ehrenstein, you cut my post up pretty well from the standpoint of laughing at everything I said, but I can't find any rebuttals with which to maintain any sort of debate." This is a chat board. Genuine debate requires something more than the blogisphere is currenltycapable of handling. "Just assertions, with a pretty strong dose of not-very-well hidden racism toward the abilities and human value of the Iraqi people." Oh it's the old "I know you are but what am I" argument. Sorry Buddy but your condescending paternalism is far too manifest to ignore. "now you didn't mean it that way, it just seems to me as though you--and Rick, too, actually--may be a little too quick to assert those two populations had a better future on 9/10/01 than they do now. " I "asserted" no such thing. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant -- who was on the U.S. payroll as late as Bush I. We wanted the oil. The people who happen to occupy the land where the oil is are "collateral damage" and nothing more. There is no reason to believe that BushCo. cares for them any more than they care for the people in this country who don't belong to the top 2%. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 19, 2003 09:54:52 AM
Gee, what fun I miss by not blogging on the weekend. I think its a good excercise to do a lefty-righty blog comparison, but I think you "stepped in it" with the "left is more on party line" comment. Look at the situation today. The left is up against a Bush administration that seems to be popular although the Left sees reason it shouldn't be. Now rewind 4-6 years. You have Clinton with (at least) a political popularity that the Right similarly can't fathom. If you made this post back then, you'd say that the Right was all together on attacking Clinton, and the Left was "more diverse". There is diversity in both groups. Just as the GOP had different solutions to Clinton/Gore (the moderate/right wanted Bush , the hardcore right wanted Alan Keyes, liberal GOP wanted Lamar Alexander, the independents wanted John McCain), so now do the Dems have different solutions to Bush. The blogs reflect alot of that spectrum: DU and FR and the far ends while the others congregate more towards the middle - in various degrees. You can't really pigeonhole entire parties because they are made up by different types of people with various agendas. (For example, Tacitus has a post as why he's Republican. Interesting and insightful, but much of it was unrelated as to why I am a Republican.) The Democrats are the same way (and their diversity is why the party will nominate Lieberman and many Dems will scratch their head in amazement). By "questioning their diversity" (although I know you didn't use those words) you took a Louisville Slugger to a beehive of dissent that would be generally more fervent if you made the charge to Republicans. Given all that, I think the REAL difference between lefty and righty blogs is that the lefty blogs see themselves as a vehicle to "change the world" while the right blogs are commenting on the real forces that already are changing the world. How d'ya like that? Posted by: Mike the Analyst at May 19, 2003 10:47:43 AM
David Ehrenstein, I didn't mean to call names, apologies if you took it that way. I had formed the impression from your words that you thought that what we had done to/for the Iraqi people was meaningless, and that's what I tried to challenge; I'm glad to know I was wrong on that count. And you are right in calling me down if I insinuated that I have certain knowledge that "BushCo" (nice one, there) really in their hearts care about the Iraqi people. Let me hone this a bit: As long as the Iraqi people benefit from the removal of Saddam, and the admittedly distressing problems of the moment are solved with some alacrity, then why is the matter of BushCo's emotional attachment to them--the "care" factor--even important? It's that old philosophical conundrum, really the basis of the schism between Catholics and Protestants, questioning which is the prime moral statement, one's actions, or one's intentions. I don't mean to offend you with any more "paternalism," this is just the way I think and write, and I'm just trying to grasp your remarks for my own elucidation. And, thanks for answering. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 11:15:20 AM
"As long as the Iraqi people benefit from the removal of Saddam, and the admittedly distressing problems of the moment are solved with some alacrity, then why is the matter of BushCo's emotional attachment to them--the "care" factor--even important?" Well then this becomes another chorus of that old stand-by "The End Justifies the Means." It's not enough to overthorw Saddam's statue to bring "stability" to that corner of the world and create better times for its people. If the U.S. was sincerely concerned with the Iraqi people it wouldn't have launched this war. As a reuslt of this war Saddam -- and more important for the media his statue -- are gone. And what do we have in his place? Ethnic and religious rivalries have resurfaced. There's no water, food, or medical supplies and a cholera epidemic has broken out. I CANNOT REPEAT THOSE SIMPLE UGLY FACTS NEARLY ENOUGH!!! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 19, 2003 11:31:27 AM
I think you are on to something. I'd also suggest a dichotomy in left/right world view is relevant to this analysis. Hayek posited that we do things the way we do them because of trial and error. When Hayek is applied, we arrive at conservative thought (we ought to stick with the tried and true; look to history to see what works) and libertarian thought (we ought to let people figure things out for themselves, economically and politically, the market is self-correcting). This is sort of the opposite of writing rules. It's the acceptance of reality, and reality isn't an inward-looking thing. Liberals - especially the harder edged left - have exactly the opposite viewpoint. They start with a theory (e.g. wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody contributed according to their ability, and took only according to their needs...) and then apply the general rule to every situation that arises. Things are good or bad based on their ability to conform to pre-existing notions of how things oughta be. When something happens, the right and the libertarians look at it and say "why did it happen?" and "is the result good or bad for the people affected?" On the other hand, the left looks at the event, and says "does it further or hinder our organizing theory?" The right's consideration results in a lot of argument over causation, and whether something is good or not good. The standard applied is usually some standard of past successes or failures. "The present economic policy is bad becaue it will lead to inflation" or "That social welfare program is good because it encourages people to get off welfare." Reasonable minds can differ on these questions, so we have a lot of arguments. In contrast, the left can't allow real life events to get in the way of the organizing theory. Anything that contradicts the prevailing wisdom must be refuted, or somehow bashed into shape so that it fits the theory. Smaller happenings that only incidentally hurt the left -- such as a conservative president boosting medicare spending -- have to be discredited as well. The whole Marcusian/Gramscian idea that "the personal is political" plays into this mindset; nothing is so small and insignificant that it might be politically small and insignificant. If it doesn't further the cause, if it would tend to discredit the theories, then it must be bad... As a result of these bedrock epistomological differences, conservatives and libertarians seem to be a bit more eclectic and wide-ranging in their thoughts than liberals. After getting over an initial closed-mindedness and prejudice in favor of the old (or in libertarians' cases, the new) we're just looking for what works, not for what fits. Libs & cons tend to look outwards and ask what works, what doesn't; and in this outward looking viewpoint they come across lots of interesting things that don't fit into any particular political scheme and talk about them. The left, on the other hand, has a bit of a hothouse quality to it. It's insular. Because things have to be made to fit theory, a lot of time is spent bashing facts into shape. A great example is the relatively recent debut of the newest Star Trek series. The righties who bother with such things, such as Jonah Goldberg, said "hmm, interesting. Nice supermodel on this one, I like the theme music." The lefties immediately started bitching about the patriarchal themes, the fact that there are no ugly women (lookism!) and the fact that it has another white male captain, and the images during the credits are all imperialistic images from dead white European male history... It wasn't okay being just a show, it had to be fit into a political schema. Posted by: Omnibus Bill at May 19, 2003 11:44:02 AM
lockstep lefties? hahaha. From what I can tell we're a disorganized, fractious lot - from the institutional Democracts criticizing Dean and his "elitist activists" (hippie college students?) to socialists handing out their newspaper on the streetcorner - it's a huge spectrum. I typically vote for Democrats because I see them as the lesser of two evils. I still think I should have the right to own a gun (not an assault rifle) and that Clinton was a total sleaze. How's that for locksteppin'? Anyway, how exactly are we supposed to be lockstepping? What is the mechanism there, radio-transmitted thought control? There are no national media personalities telling me what to think, and I'm not having any memos faxed to me. I take everything I read on MWO, Salon, the NYTimes or similar sites with a huge grain of salt, same for blogs and lefty personalities. (I will admit to granting more trust to BBC News and Greg Palast, but they too are human and prone to biases and mistakes). So just how am I supposed to be enabled to lockstep? Posted by: Librul at May 19, 2003 11:53:16 AM
Well, although I think I might comment at some point on the other issues raised here (and there are lots of 'em, aren't there?), as someone who has written a blog for some time now from a perspective that agrees with Ayn Rand on philosophic essentials (pace, Thersites: I've read lots more than one book -- and note that I said essentials; I disagree with Rand on a number of points, as well), I do need to say a word about so-called "Ayn Rand Republicans." Ahem...there ain't no such thing. As I've pointed out in numerous posts (check under Individual Rights in Topics for lots of entries), the conservative/Religious Right wing of the Repub. Party, which appears to be calling the shots on numerous issues right now, is a far worse enemy of individual rights and freedom than any liberal could ever hope to be. These conservatives pose as defenders of freedom and, if they had their way (with regard to "Homeland Security," "local censorship," laws enforcing religious views of morality, etc., etc., etc.), they would destroy freedom completely. Since they comprise a significant part of the Republican Party today, and since Rand was (whatever else you might think of her) a passionate defender of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, to refer to "Ayn Rand Republicans" is to insult her in a manner no one deserves. Moreover, it reveals a complete lack of understanding of her political views. So please, try another phrase -- one with a modicum of meaning this time. Posted by: Arthur Silber at May 19, 2003 11:54:57 AM
'libertarians' Libertarians are nothing more than Republicans who smoke pot and want to 'tell' themselves they are open minded, independent thinkers. A lot of BS. Both groups want to drain all funding of our government (which by there actions one can tell they BOTH hate) so they we can collapse into chaos and a survival of the fittest society. Too bad they can't see what they are asking for, but they can't. Of course the chaos will enable Ashcroft, religous zealots and the fascists to take more control, as the people scream that somethinmg should be done. You are getting the world you are asking for... you just have NO IDEA what it is you asking for... I guess you think you can cover your behinds, while as the society implodes, with your help, by 'claiming' to be a member of the free thinking 'libertarians.' What a bunch of self serving frauds. Posted by: Pete at May 19, 2003 12:18:33 PM
Ok, David Ehrenstein, one more, and then I surrender. Neither of us can pop over and poll the Baghdadis at the moment, and I know you can context the irate citizens complaining to western TV cameras about the utilities, because you can see through the same sort of thing here in this country, so let me ask you to guess what proportion of the Iraqi citizenry would choose today to go back to, say, a year ago, and to know that no one was ever coming after Saddam. Bear in mind what currecy valuations state about the confidence in the future of the holders, and that the Dinar just yesterday hit a seven-year high, and is climbing. The Baghdad real estate market is starting to boom, too, and it is both Iraqi mattress money and foreign Arab money that is driving it. And this is only the beginning of the beginning. I rest my case here, having tossed you a few objective researchable facts. I'll quit pestering you now, adios, and best of luck to you. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 19, 2003 12:25:27 PM
Well, well, Pete, that was certainly a well-reasoned criticism of the libertarian position. And you even managed to avoid personal invective. Bravo! [End sarcasm.] Posted by: Arthur Silber at May 19, 2003 01:07:57 PM
OMNIBUS BILL wrote: "The left, on the other hand, has a bit of a hothouse quality to it. It's insular. Because things have to be made to fit theory, a lot of time is spent bashing facts into shape." REPLY: You mean by doing something like this: Geez, what a load of crap. Do right-wingers actually believe the nonsense they are writing here? Surely they cannot all be this stupid. Posted by: Thomas at May 19, 2003 01:32:11 PM
Omnibus Bill: "This is sort of the opposite of writing rules." HAHAHA conservatives don't like writing rules? Conservatives want people to have freedom; freedom to do the kinds of things like conservatives like to do. Seriously, everything you said about liberals, i.e. seeking only to justify the organizing theory, could be much better applied to libertarian thought. They start with a theory and then apply the general rule to every situation that arises. Duh. It requires simplification and relaxation of certain economic realities. Negative externality is a big one. Common pool resources, public goods, market power, scale economies, imperfect information, bounded rationality.... all must be ignored. Free markets are not always economically efficient because of the market structure, the organization of information and the way the economy scales. But generally confirmation bias (only looking for confirming evidence of one's theories) is extremely common in human reasoning as has been verified by many scientific experiments as well as by any trip through the blogosphere at any given time. The war issue brought this effect out in full force. The hawks didn't want to talk about the protests, the doves only wanted to talk about civilian casualties. Examples should come easily to mind. Liberals tend to want to do things that make them feel good, "Wouldn't it be nice if..." as you said. Conservatives do the same thing, except different things make them feel good -- they tend to like things that make them feel powerful, like guns, religion, military spending, "strong" foreign policy, etc. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody contributed according to their ability, and took only according to their needs..." Come on, you had to use the communist example? That's really straw man-ish. Well, conservatives look to history to see what worked. Well, slavery worked for a while. Inflammatory example, but it fits what you were saying and is just as fair as the communist one. Posted by: taktile at May 19, 2003 02:06:15 PM
"let me ask you to guess what proportion of the Iraqi citizenry would choose today to go back to, say, a year ago, and to know that no one was ever coming after Saddam. Bear in mind what currecy valuations state about the confidence in the future of the holders, and that the Dinar just yesterday hit a seven-year high, and is climbing. The Baghdad real estate market is starting to boom, too, and it is both Iraqi mattress money and foreign Arab money that is driving it. And this is only the beginning of the beginning. " Typical. It's not a simple up or down on Saddam as a measure of the "success" of this gross violation of the Geneva convention, and never has been. Naturally you see the relative value of the Dinar as the key to the whole thing. What about the people whose homes were reduced to rubble and whose wives and children were torn to shreds by by our bombs? I guess it would be best not to include them in your poll, eh? Cluephone for "Omnibus Bill": Star Trek was over eons ago. Today the only show that matters for anyone on the Left is Buffy. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 19, 2003 02:43:27 PM
If anyone's still reading, I've got some comments here. Posted by: Ted Barlow at May 19, 2003 03:05:06 PM
Thersites writes: "Out of three possible confirmatory sources, two of them have your own freaking nom de plume in the URL and the other is a clearly paritisan site. I see you have well-earned the 'wacko' moniker. Learn the basics of research, dumbass, and then lecture us. Christ, you righties make a pisspoor showing of yourselves." The three pages he's referring to follow. Thersites discredits himself by not realizing that, like most other blogs, I link to other sites. In fact, the first page has about 20 or 30 links to a variety of sources. The second blog post links to a few other sites. The amconmag page references articles and other on- and off-line sources. Christ, you lefties make a pisspoor showing of yourselves http://www.tolstoy.com/lonewacko/blog/archives/000293.html http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000487.html#000487 http://www.amconmag.com/03_10_03/feature.html Posted by: Lonewacko at May 19, 2003 03:23:45 PM
I love this cartoon liberal that you all talk about. It is just like the cartoon Muslim and the cartoon Communist - it is oversimplified right-wing pap. Liberals do not have a daily liberal talking points memo. They don't have a network devoted to solidifying liberal thought( Conservatives have 2.5, talk radio, most of the newspapers, ClearChannel, etc ). You people are classic. Conservatives are always under attack by the "librul" media. Conservatives are the only types of people that see the world with a rational world view. Conservatives make their decisions based on logic and facts - liberals make their decisions based on feeling. Liberalism is the same as communism. What a great cartoon world most of you seem to inhabit. Back in the real world, you might try to bash into your heads the idea that the "liberal" you are attacking is a facade - it is a disparaging false icon created by the right to make liberals look like touchy-feely morons. It is not any more true than the idea that all conservatives are low-brow, gun toting cowboys, who think they are intelligent because they listen to Rush, that would rather cut taxes for the rich than educate their own kids (well, I guess that might not be off the mark). In truth, the cartoons from both sides do nothing to actually make the ideas clearer, they simply muddy the waters. To try and clear up this "librul" myth, I will tell you what I think - as a liberal - about several issues of the day. Iraq: I think that there was a fair case for invading Iraq. I do not think Iraq was any kind of a threat to anybody. I do not think they had an active NBC program, and I do not think they were going to pursue it while the U.N. inspections were taking place. NBC capabilities had nothing to do with this war. It was just a convenient threat to move the public - as was the need for the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that Bush launched both actions as an effort to secure American control over natural resources before China and the EU became major players in the arena. I feel that this was the cause of much of the French and German disdain in Iraq. Iraq served another purpose. It kept OPEC from seriously condidering changing their exchange currency to the Euro - which Iraq did a few months before Bush's ramp up. I do not think either action will make us safer from terrorists. in fact, I think that both exacerbated the problem. Al Qaeda is not localized in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is only secure inside of Kabul - everything else is run by local warlords. Iraq will not accept open ended U.S. occupation, and they will not like a puppet U.S. government. We can suppress dissent and public discord in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that will simply breed more terrorism. In this sense, the war on terrorism can never be over. An endless war is a boon for warlords and defense contractors. I do not think it is proper to lie to the world to start a war, either, but I guess conservatives have no problem with lying politicians. I don;t think lying about having an affair is the same thing as lying about the reasons for war. Taxes: It is beyond me how trickle down economics made it back into the public arena without anyone pointing out that it did not work for Reagan and it isn't working for Bush. I guess since the corporate media is controlled by people that will benefit from the demise of progressive taxation, it is not to surprising. As with Regan, the common man is told that the tax cut is for his benefit - and being relatively ignorant of history, the common man supports it. Even though real wages have been on the decline for the past 20 years, even though the rich are paying an increasingly lower percentage of their income to the government, the common man still buys the idea that the rich are overtaxed. The argument that lowering taxes for the rich allows them to have more money to invest in more jobs and a bigger business ignores all the current tax loopholes, tax shelters, levels of capital investment, consumer confidence, interest rates, etc. to create a pleasant, simple narrative. All the pleasant narratives in the world are not going to get us away from the fact that the tax cut that was just passed is going to sink our children deeper in debt for little short-term stimulus. This is what the conservatives want. I am not talking about the garden variety conservatives, I am talking about the people that hate social security and medicare so much that they are willing to bankrupt our nation so that we are forced to "trim the fat". This is Bush's goal. Education: Vouchers are a weak attempt to have the government pay for religious education. The idea is marketed as a way of letting inner city kids attend a private school on the public dime, but it simply ignores the problem with poorly funded schools and facilities. It takes money away from public schools - to transfer that money to private schools - which will only benefit the kids that can get to the private schools every day ( people with cars, flexible schedules, people that live close to the private school - not poor people ). I think Bush's education plan is a joke. The Pledge of Allegiance: When the Pledge was written, it did not include "Under God". I think we should recite it the way it was written. I hope you understand that I do not make decisions based on party philosophy or party lines. I think most liberals are that way. I think it is foolish for you to simply see the world as a cartoon of reality. It makes you look like real fools. Posted by: Scott at May 19, 2003 03:34:33 PM
Mirror, mirror on the wall... What do you call this garbage about tax cuts being the answer to everything? Surely it's not FACING FACTS. Posted by: Julia Grey at May 19, 2003 03:42:28 PM
hi howard, interesting. how many "right wing" bloggists actually wanted santorum's head over what could be only construed as the advocacy of the government's generalized right to invade anyone's privacy on sexual issues? how does that sound like a libertarian position? Posted by: cas at May 19, 2003 03:43:05 PM
I'm reserving my comments until after I hear what Rush has to say. Posted by: Gen. JC Christian, Patriot at May 19, 2003 04:08:51 PM
Wow, is there any topic that won't be addressed in this thread? It's a veritable circus of ideological taxonomy! [Cue Music] This is the thread that doesn't end, This is the thread that doesn't end, Posted by: shadowtax at May 19, 2003 04:22:33 PM
"For a fractious bunch, you sure are good at flooding the place with commentary saying exactly the same thing! " Paraphrasing Krugman, you seem to be objecting to us all pointing out that chocolate ice cream is brown. You saying it is red doesn't cut it as an argument. Similarly, us all saying that Bush's economic plan is a piece of crap isn't part of some party-line conspiracy, jsut a reflection that the plan *is* a piece of crap [unless you think 10 Nobel laureates economist are conspiring with Katherine Vanden Heuvel]. Seriously though; take the American Prospect, Dissent, Z Magazine, The Nation, and Mother Jones; there are large ideological differences between them; there is more clear water between The Nation and TAP and/or Dissent than there is between National Review and the Weekly Standard. A large chunk of the history of the 20th century is disargeements between different sections of the left - (liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, authoritarian/revolutionary socialists), for God's sake. Doesn't anybody read "Homage to Catalonia" anymore? For me, I perceive the conservative right as being much more discliplined; I rationalize this that if you want to go backwards to a fabled better past, there's only one way to go. Posted by: Tom at May 19, 2003 04:38:06 PM
I am a former consevative who moved left, due in part to the religious nature of rightist political dogma, and the unwillingnesss to admit or take responsibility for past mistakes (i.e. the genocide caused by fascism in the 20th Century.) Posted by: Patriotboy at May 19, 2003 04:43:56 PM
I feel like this discussion lacks any kind of historical perspective. The story of America is the story of 225 years of liberal victories. That's a long time for the opposition to sharpen it's fingernails. And if Liberals blog less, perhaps it's because they have more ambitious things to accomplish. Posted by: Sebastien Cole at May 19, 2003 05:03:33 PM
Wow, what an interesting thread, in that it's always interesting to meet up with people who can't see who they really are. As for "marching in lockstep", just take a look at the party-line votes and the numerous articles from the past ten years that speak to the GOP's whip-cracking techniques over their congressional delegation. Then see how many examples you can find of that on the Democratic side of the equation. For the poster who is a Randian and who says he'll continue pulling the GOP lever because "it is the future", I suppose it hasn't occured to you that a one-party state isn't the best way to nurture the individualism that Rand trumpeted. Just ask all those Iraqis that we recently liberated. It's also interesting how many of the 60 and under crowd, who have lived a life that for the most part has been unthreatened by major wars or economic crises, so easily subscribe to the conservative rhetoric of "every man for himself". The generation who lived through the Depression and who fought WWII were much more inclined to come down on the side of providing a social safety net and the communitarian (we're all in this together) values that were the hallmark of the Democratic Party in the middle of the last century. The lack of major crises of these types, and the fact that the people who lived through them the last time around are a declining part of the population, are the biggest reason for the conservative ascendency in the last 20 - 25 years, IMO. And for good reason: conservative ideology is ill-equipped to deal with an economic catastrophe like the Great Depression. If the current administration's failure to deal with the stalled economy in any meaningful way over the last 30 months is any indication, it may also be ill-equipped to deal with economic problems on a smaller scale as well. What I find most interesting is that most of the unemployed conservatives with whom I've discussed the current economy are more interested in placing blame for WHY the economy is bad than they are in acknowledging that if it weren't for the social safety net (unemployment, etc) they would by now be out on the street. Even when the truth knocks on the door - that truth being that sometimes people find themselves in bad economic circumstances through no fault of their own - they are unable to cede that there are very good reasons for the social programs that liberals and, formerly, Democrats have fought to create and protect. The only reason they're unable to do this that I can guess is that it flies in the face of the argument that they've used for the past 20 years - that the poor are poor because they're lazy and undeserving, and as a result, deserve no help in raising their station. That is what I would define as being "in lockstep" - the inability to let go of rhetoric and justifications that are clearly proven to be wrong or more harmful than constructive. While I can recognize that there are some from the left who fit that description as well, I simply don't see the same unanimity of rhetoric on the left side of the spectrum, and where I do see it, it's mostly confined to Democratic Party insiders who, naturally, speak the party line. That's in contrast to the right, where most of what I hear is rehashed from GOP Team Leader talking points, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts, or whatever O'Reilly and the other talking heads said on Fox the previous evening. Case in point: before the McCain-Feingold vote, I listened to Rush one day as he trumpeted the line that 1) people should be able to spend however much they can on promoting/attacking candidates, as long as it's disclosed; and 2) that no matter what you do, money will find another way into the system. OK, on the surface, both seem to be fairly reasonable statements. But do they really address the issue in a holistic way? When I was called upon to speak to a group of citizens touring the State Capitol regarding the issue of campaign reform the following week, it quickly became clear who the Limbaugh listeners were because of their use of the exact same talking points. To which I replied: 1) I'm not sure how helpful it is for you to know if GE owns your respresentative, if he puts the interests of GE over yours and the other people in your district. We have a constitution of, by, and for the people, not of, by and for GE. So clearly it's not in the public interest for any one entity or group of entities to own the government. It perverts the ideal of "one man, one vote". 2) I could say the same thing about heroin smuggling - there's no need to try to stop it from coming in on planes, because if we do, they'll just bring it in on boats. Therefore, we should just ignore that it's harmful and do nothing, since clearly we'll never be able to stop all of it. These are not deep thoughts; just the thoughts of an individual who has actually thought through the implications of the arguments Rush made in his broadcast. The gentlemen who asked the questions didn't argue the points I brought up, so it seemed clear to me that they had not gone beyond what Rush had said in their thinking. (And for the record, I favor prohibiting all contributions from any person or entity who isn't eligible to actually vote - which includes unions and PACs. So much for me being in lockstep with the DNC on that issue.) To sum up: you find the "lockstep" effect among those who rely on others for pre-fab opinions. And as conservatives are fond of pointing out to liberals, "you don't have any liberal talk show hosts", which is generally intended as a "slam" to prove that liberals are "boring" or "out-of-touch". To the contrary, I would say that it's because most of the liberals don't need others to manufacture opinion for them. Posted by: Jennifer at May 19, 2003 07:06:38 PM
I just want to go on record as saying that you, Mr. Ruffini, are a complete asshole. Posted by: Paco Rodies at May 19, 2003 07:07:50 PM
Excellent post, Jennifer. Please restrain yourself, Paco. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 19, 2003 08:09:01 PM
When the history of the early blogosphere is written, perhaps by David Halberstam, it might indeed include this complete post as a postcript. Any time Gen. J.C. Christian: Patriot, Charles Johnson, and Tacitus, post to the same blog as Kevin Drum, Atrios, Digby, and David Ehrenstein, you've got a blogospheric Olympics. Some free advice for Buddy Larsen: Can you put line breaks between a sentence or two? Your posts might make a little more sense. To Lonewacko: Congratulations. If anyone thought you couldn't possibly reach another new low, you did. Got any baby pictures of yourself you could post? :) Posted by: edub at May 19, 2003 08:43:55 PM
Congrats, Patrick! You've managed to create quite a stir on the blogosphere. You've gotten lots of hits and links. Perhaps that's what you were aiming for. To bad that your fame is for one of the most hilariously self-regarding, uninformed, junior high quality pieces of drivel I have ever encountered. Gawd. Posted by: Realish at May 19, 2003 09:16:02 PM
Now, now, now. Let'sa not be too hard on patrick. He's been a rather gracious host. Were this "Free Republic" dissenters would have all been banished long ago. I like to think of this as a learning experience for the lad. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 19, 2003 10:07:14 PM
To bad that your fame is for one of the most hilariously self-regarding, uninformed, junior high quality pieces of drivel I have ever encountered. Do you recall den Beste's piece in which he worried that France might nuke us if we invaded Iraq? I don't think there's anything that tops that, although the comment made above about how liberals should apologize for marxist atrocities comes pretty close. Patrick's naive ramblings pale in comparison. Posted by: Patriotboy at May 19, 2003 10:24:35 PM
Hey, "edub," care to provide more information beyond a cheap ad hominem? Posted by: Lonewacko at May 19, 2003 10:28:13 PM
I should have also mentioned the LGF post where Charles expressed his concern with the "media’s barrage of images of [Rachel] Corrie looking Caucasian..." http://tinyurl.com/c69y Hmmm...I wonder if Patrick had anything to say about that. Posted by: Patriotboy at May 19, 2003 10:41:12 PM
Doubt this wil get read down here, but I couldn't resist. 1. GWB National Guard Service: Yes. The Boston Globe questioned whether Bush served all his time in the Guard. But that conservative bastion the New York Times, (cough), later checked into his record and found the dates had been made up, (from TNYT Nov. 30, 2000): "Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe." Sorry for posting that much of it but the story is now archived. Moral of the Story: This wasn't an issue for the elctorate, because it wasn't true. Both sides need to throw out the worst lies about their opponent in order to have some kind of credibility. Posted by: glorybbb at May 19, 2003 11:06:14 PM
2. I consider myself a conservative republican. From what I've seen of the blogs on the right, they tend to be libertarian. 3. Kos is probably the best overall political blog. I have been banned from commenting there because he says his site is, "by liberals for liberals." It was rich to me that I was willing to read their side of the story, but they cannot allow dissenting opinions. 4. Bush: I disagree with the fact that the administration has not gone after spending cuts. 5. Oh and another comment on Bush's service record from National Guard Magazine in Jan. 2001: "Bush's drill performance also stirred controversy during the campaign. Some reports charged that he was absent for a year. However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr." glorybbb Posted by: glorybbb at May 19, 2003 11:15:30 PM
Omnibus Bill: Compliments on your perceptive observations, common sense, and rationality. It was worth it to read all the way down for your post. Patrick, genuine compliments to you in spite of Realish. Isn't it remarkable how this thread caught fire. Have you thought of making a post colloquium summary? Thanks. Posted by: Ray at May 19, 2003 11:27:13 PM
Don't attack France! It's greatest filmmaker is about to save Meg Ryan's career! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 20, 2003 12:35:04 AM
I'm still waiting for the sons and daughters of church and kings, Nemo me impune lacesset. * Posted by: the farmer at May 20, 2003 05:00:23 AM
My god Patrick, I can't believe that you have not individually emailed the commenters on this thread, thanking them for their wonderfully incise, thoughtful and cogent contributions. I'm sure they will all turn into wonderfully erudite repeat visitors who any blogger would be honored to have as welcome guests. Seriously, I would largely concur with your sentiments. Like glorybb, I too have been banned by Kos (quite a club). Posted by: Lloyd Albano at May 20, 2003 02:56:24 PM
I was banned from DailyKos too. I can get around the ban pretty easy - I've got tons and tons of dynamic IPs, and I'm the author of a program to delete cookies. But, even so, I probably won't leave more comments there or at his polstate site. Why I was banned reveals a lot about Mr. Kos, read the details here. Posted by: Lonewacko at May 20, 2003 04:01:37 PM
Hey, thanks for reading, Lloyd Albano. Until I posted here a few nights ago, I hadn't realized how little sense I made, nor how was bad my sentence constuction and paragraph-thingie-lack. I thought I couldn't get actually read because I was one of those tories and using all those hackneyed arguments. I tried not point out that the points may be familiar for a reason, and I purposely avoided any mention of the dead-people pits and torture cells, trying to see what other thoughts on the justice of the war really were, at bottom. As I suspected, both L&R are using the welfare of 50mm Afghans and Iraqis mainly to make domestic political points. An obvious observation, I know, but still needs to be pointed out as often as possible, in hopes that sooner or later the difference between 'permanent' and 'temporary' conditions won't be so gratuitously ignored. Take a look at the WSJournal site today, there's a great article (that IS on-topic) by Julia Gorin. The site has a reader-response feature, where good reactions from all perspectives L&R can get exposure. The articles are mostly classic liberal Burke/Locke pov, and usually concern current hi/res issues, but anyone interested can see all that, and won't need any paternal guidance from me (whew!). And Farmer, I'm with you, I'm against big-money Tory puppeteers, too, and I think I see what you mean, with the disconnection of the Founding revolutionaries with both D&R parties today. I had quit the oilpatch over a decade ago and plowed everything I had+all I could borrow into a small start-from-ground-up dairygoat/cheese operation in central Texas (Larsen Farms Texas Chevre is my label/brand) and have spent a third of my time since in and out of court with the regulatory food-safety agencies over--not the safety of my products, but incredibly minute, interpretation-sensitive meaningless regulations that have never been exposed to logic, but have been derived by agency bureaucrats creating pork-work for themselves, for no public good at all. Just regulations, man! Ok for big outfits with the money to dedicate staff-personnel to liason with these guys, who work maybe from 10 to 11 am, then maybe some more from 2 to 3 pm, but can and do kill you dead (and send you back to the drlng rigs broke and bitter--Ha!) even at those hours. So much for the little folks trying to bootstrap themselves up, against the enormous weight of protected-by-self-written administrative-law regulatory agencies. By '01, before I began spooling it up (and selling off the dairygoats) over a 25K fine--not criminal law, not civil law, but "administrative law"-- for a technical label infraction of which my being not-guilty mattered not at all because my attitude had pissed off a dept. director, I'd created a half dozen jobs in a depressed rural county between Austin and San Antonio--these six older ladies who made and packaged the cheese needed their jobs, and now are still unemployed. And, for what? Because I couldn't afford to pay the government any more extorted protection money, that's what for. My cheese and livestock operation never failed a single hygiene inspection--and there were thousands. I'm a Democrat on paper (first vote was for Mr. Carter), but having been personally scorched (and, you know, having my kids hurt by unnecessarily strained finances) by the big-government regulations-loving element of the party, that's all I can see now, when I look at the Democrats. More, and bigger government, wildly expensive, wasteful beyond belief, and gratuitously intrusive-- and in the end utterly demoralizing for all Americans right AND left. And, as to the topic which led me into this site; the military is a pure meritocracy, almost universally working people, and ought to be the darling of the Democrats--as should be the liberation of enslaved peoples. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 20, 2003 07:00:14 PM
How were you "personally scorched" and by what specific regulations? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 20, 2003 07:26:38 PM
Form Tom Tomorrow's site: "Okay, one quick one "I'm forgetting who coined this phrase but I think it's largely true that today's right looks for converts whereas today's left looks for heretics. That's why the left tends to be duller, more self-absorbed and generally less entertaining than the right. The right is always trying to build an audience; the left is busy purging theirs'." I'll pause while you wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes. I assume that it's unnecessary for me to dwell at length on the various exercises in enforced conformity emanating from the right wing over the past year, from the would-be boycott of the Dixie Chicks, to Fox News' cluck-clucking over dissent, to Sullivan's own various Incorrect Thinking and General Depravity Awards. Yeah, the right is entertaining, but not in the way they'd like to think." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 20, 2003 07:59:01 PM
And, as to the topic which led me into this site; the military is a pure meritocracy Isn't it pretty to think so? The military is as fiercely political and personal and petty as any other human organization. Lucky for us they can't be as obviously arbitrary and favor-flavored as PRIVATE INDUSTRY because they're one of those -- gasp! -- government bureaucracies (oh no!) and they're subject to public scrutiny. Sheesh, you guys. Get your story straight. Your mantra is supposed to be "Private industry is inherently efficient and meritocratic, government operations are inherently wasteful and inefficient." Never mind that everyone has a stake in government operations and private companies are supposed to benefit only their shareholders. Government = bad, Corporations = good, right? Posted by: Julia Grey at May 20, 2003 08:18:52 PM
Hey, David Ehrenstein, thanks for reading. To answer your question, it has to do with the tiny margins by which any micro business survives, even when everything controllable goes right, and you actually can jump over a miracle and sell to free buyers at enough profit to pay your living expenses, and, hopefully, in time, grow--and employ more folks, and pay more taxes that you hope aren't spent by gov't employees with enough paid-by-you time on their hands to spend thousands of hours beating up some dumbbass goat farmer, who won't ever fail his product safety tests and inspections, and whose site is a convenient hour's drive from the state headquarters. I put 300k--mostly bank borrowed--into building the facilities on 22 acres of scrubland on hwy 165 outside Blanco, Texas. I put 18 hrsx365 days/yr milking up to 200 does, doing food shows in Dallas, Houston, San Antone, & Austin, cultivating grocery chain buyers (H.E.B. was biggest) and restaurant chefs in an extremely competitive niche. Sales climbed steadily, wife and four kids all working hard, happy family, American-dream type deal. Regulatory agency over me was Texas Dept. of Health/Milk & Dairy Division. Got on well with 'em for almost a decade, they're mostly old farm boys. In '96, though, the TDH re-organized, and I then fell under a sister division, TDH/Manufactured Foods Division (due to my packaging on-site). Crucial paragraph--though I didn't realize it until too late, the new guys came out looking for a scalp. It seems the two divisions were competitive within the TDH, budget and perkwise, and ManFoods guys wanted to show up the Milk&Dairy guys for having been lax at the one site that had changed hands in my reg. region--mine. The above is no cheap surmise, I have friends in the old division who spoke to me on this once they knew what was happening to me--but, they, too, are TDH employees, and even if I gave 'em away, it was still going to have to be speculation. But, true, trust me. This is an inherently sloppy biz, David, with a barn-ful of manure and summertime flies around a creamery bldng making a live product that involves pasteurizing, curdling, ladelling, trimming, squeezing, whey by-products, etc. Running two 8 hr milkings/day, 200 animals, and making cheese clock-round, the place can never meet restaurant & grocery store site-sanitation regs. Milk& Dairy knew this. ManFoods, mainly urban process-plant/restaurant/grocery store inspectors, could, and did, take the position that I had to meet their regs. Over the subsequent several years, the extra work demands were beyond odiously harassing, fines followed, tempers flared, and they began I believe wanting rid of this troublesome nutcase goat farmer. The three inspectors involved spread word thru my customers--who were NOT the always happy end-users but WERE the same wholesalers who ALSO were inspected by ManFoods--and thus afraid of them-- that TDH/MF was not happy with LFInc. Sales began dropping, meaning money for paying the extra labor to maintain the pristine standard under heavy penalty-inspection rigor wasn't there; I had to do it all myself. Things slip when you're breaking down. I had been buying about 10% of my raw curd from another "Grade A" dairy--a flavor blending augmentation--and this other dairy (The Yellow Rose) had voluntarily dropped their "Grade A" spec. (Grade A refers to bottled-milk standards involving the age of the milk before past.& packaging, cheese does not require it, but I was "Grade A" for the added hygiene cachet I thought needed for a small manufacturer of dairygoat cheese). Yellow Rose cheese was in my freezer, used as needed, from before they had dropped (for reasons of uneeded extra-labor demands) their "A" spec. Some amount, a few dozen pounds of this, went out my doors blended about 1 to 10 with my own "A" cheese--but a month or so after YRDairy had dropped the "A" spec. When TDH informed me that YRDairy was no longer "A" (though perfectly compliant otherwise) I discontinued it as a blend, but I could not prove that the few dozen lbs that went out in the interim had been bought BEFORE YRD had dropped the "A" tech spec. My record-keeping system had never extended into that requirement, the YRD came in bulk, un-lot numbered. I'd forseen no problem, though I might've if I hadn't been physically crushed by then by the for-a-decade-previously-unrequired-extra-site-hygiene overwork, and depressed by the dawning knowledge that the state, as represented by three assholes named Dan Sowards, Joe Dixon, and Mike Campbell, had the power and frank intention of blowing my biz, and the employees and family that it supported, and the friggin' bank loan, and all that work and great reputation with my wholesalers and end-users, completely out of the water for the sin of having ID'd the departmental turf battle that I'd fallen into, and having said as much in a personal fax to Department Director Sowards. Anyway the fine on the label infraction--which hadn't actually occurred--was 25K (about what by then after two years of harassment I was taking home for groceries), on an unintentional minor technical violation that I researched as, in all other similar cases for years back, had resulted in a fine-less reprimand or at most a tenth of what Sowards pronounced upon me. Relief method was through an administrative law hearing conducted by the department legal guy who offices down the hall from and shares a coffee station with the guy who laid the fine. Beyond that, relief is through application thru attorneys for a legislative waiver to sue the department. That's where I am, now, I can still sue, but the biz is dead. They broke me. And, jeez, David, did you ever get some venting outta me, with your simple question. Don't know how I could've answered you any more briefly, though. But, haven't you heard stories like this before from small-business folks? Posted by: Buddy Larsen at May 20, 2003 09:02:35 PM
"When Hayek is applied, we arrive at conservative thought (we ought to stick with the tried and true; look to history to see what works) and libertarian thought (we ought to let people figure things out for themselves, economically and politically, the market is self-correcting). This is sort of the opposite of writing rules. It's the acceptance of reality, and reality isn't an inward-looking thing." This is just bizarre. Capitalism is not the tried-and-true, has never been the tried-and-true. This is an economic system which is about 200 years old. Newest thing on the block, and it keeps changing. Unregulated markets are full of positive feedbacks, and positive feedback is not self-correcting--quite the opposite, it is destabilizing. Supporting this is conservative? Why? What is conserved? The quoted remarks are not the acceptance of reality, but its rejection. I do wish conservatives would ask themselves what it is they wish to conserve. If anyone is actually reading this--I rather think not--I would very much like to see an answer. Posted by: John Hackworth at May 21, 2003 01:26:35 AM
Thanks for responding at length, Buddy, but your "this is an inherently sloppy biz" says it all. Your tale of personal toil and "I had to do it all myself" can only be measured against the consequences of NOT having any regulations in place at all. Do you want to think about that or does this come under the heading of "that's not my problem"? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at May 21, 2003 09:33:15 AM
Beautiful prose stylists? That reminds me of the Dale Carnegie truism that the sweetest sound in the English language is the sound of one's own name. In a similar vein, the echo of one's own words are deep, insightful, and stirring. Posted by: Rick Heller at May 22, 2003 06:32:29 PM
I had for a time posted regularly to a communal blog but was warned that "you are naive" because of what you post, say; and later, "we always support the underdog." Now for a blog trying to bring abourt freedom and equity throughout the world to hue to a party line so closely akin to ...well, you name the historical party lines...seemed to me so much nonsense. So I left, amused by the intolerance shown in the name of greater tolerance they hoped to bring about.
Lefties are always automatically (lockstepishly) against Bush; his world view is so different from theirs that he apparently is a sort of psychological threat to them, on a personal level. As in, if he is right, then they are not just wrong, but very, very wrong. But yet, he is always genial, as if to purposely hide the nature of this rather mortal threat. So, he is doubly hated even more for having and using these democratic personal skills.
However, if these certain lefties would just stop hyperventilating for a moment, and reflect on all this, they would realize that Bush has NO IDEA that he is this monster threat to their innermost beings, and that he simply operates on an utterly different plane, and that that's why the two far sides so often seem to talk past each other.
The lefties will settle down as soon as they have a leader to focus them. Then they will fall into a different lockstep, hopefully, with a real plan, rather than the current "Bush is an idiot."
"OK righties, you think you're diverse?
Lefties are always automatically (lockstepishly) against Bush; his world view is so different from theirs that he apparently is a sort of psychological threat to them, on a personal level.
I fear you have missed a main point though, a cautionary note: By being lock-step, the lefty's hide from the truth. They don't EVER have to look behind the curtain, they just do as they are told.
http://www.freedomofmind.com/groups/moonies/fraserport.htm
"Alan Tate Wood, a former UC(Moon's Unification 'Church') member who had been president of the FLF, described to the subcommittee some of Moon's political ambitions and activities. He said that Moon, through the UC and its numerous front organizations, wanted to acquire enough influence in America to be able to "dictate policy on major issues, to influence legislation, and move into electoral politics."(228) In the United States, the political goals of the UC and those of the KCIA "overlap so thoroughly as to display no difference at all."
+++
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.
+++
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/018.html
Bush and his wife, Barbara, have spoken at several events sponsored by the Women's Federation for World Peace, which is run by Moon's wife, Hak Ja Han Moon. More than 50,000 people paid to see the Bushes at a single event at the Tokyo Dome last year. Tickets cost between $105 and $196 each. The group would not disclose how much it paid Bush and his wife, nor would the former president reveal his fee, but estimates ran as high as $1 million for his six appearances with the group here.
++
http://www.freedomofmind.com/presskitarticles/fisher.htm
"All these people should know better. My daughter would tell me over and over how in their recruiting films they would show Moon with Bush to impress young people. They use the films of Moon and Bush and other celebrities to reassure parents that it is okay that their children are on the streets selling flowers 18 hours a day." (Washington Post, July 30, 1996)
+++
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/101100a.html
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/ffcc042fbd8c52708525698100716fcc
http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html
FUTURE PLANS(1976): "Once our movement arouses the interest of the people in a nation, through mass media it will spread all throughout the world… So, we are going to focus our attention on one nation from where to reach the world. For that purpose I chose the U.S.
If the U.S. continues its corruption, and we find among the Senators and Congressmen no one really usable for our purpose, we can make Senators and Congressman out of our members… I have met many famous, so-called famous, Senators and Congressmen; but to my eyes, they are nothing. They are weak and helpless. We will win the battle. This is our dream, our project. But shut your mouth tight."
+++
"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church. When they recognize and accept our movement, the world restoration will be very easy." ("Rev" Sun Myung Moon 1965 "The Master Speaks")
+++
Righties are always automatically (lockstepishly) against Clinton; his world view is so different from theirs that he apparently is a sort of psychological threat to them, on a personal level. As in, if he is right, then they are not just wrong, but very, very wrong. But yet, he is always genial, as if to purposely hide the nature of this rather mortal threat. So, he is doubly hated even more for having and using these democratic personal skills.
30% of their support comes from minority voters, who support the Democrats mainly because of the Democrats stand on social spending, economic issues and affirmative action.
Professionals-. This grtoup includes teachers, many in the medical and legal feilds, and are highly educated, and this group is largely female as well. This is the group that drives much of the agenda of the Democratic party now.
left leaning moderates- similar to the professionals in many ways, but not as highly educated, also more receptive to conservative economic issues, but solidly liberal on social issues. In the 80s, the GOP picked some decent(thiough no where near a majority) support form this group, thart eveaporated after the 94 mid terms.
This group is the classic labor liberal wing of the party, solicly liberal on economic issues, but more moderate on social issues, and as the name implies, this group is largely elderly, though not entirely.
This group was along with the new dealers the core of the Democratic party before 1968. They lean liberal on some economics issues, but are outright reactionary on social issues, but because on their families and labor ties to the Democratic party, they still largely vote for Democrats, most members of this group at this point are also over 60. Also this group of voters are the ones the Dermocrats are most in danger of losing, and they make upwards of 25% of the Democratic base in swing states such as PA, MI, IA and WI. When people see surveys and see that 15% of people who consider themselves part of the religous right vote for Democrats, the voters come from this group.
25% Religous Right.
This is the group everyone thinks of as religous conservatives, and probably make up the biggest percentage of the GOP at this point. BY no means are all people who are religous and conservative belong to this group, see below, but this is the group that fits the media profile of being solidly conservative on social and economic issues.
This is the younger version of the group allready mentioned as part of the Democratic base, but for the GOP, the bulk of them are under 40. Many of them consider theselves religous conservatives, and on social issues like their older counterparts in the Democratic party, they are almost reactionary, they are not as liberal as their Democratic counterparts on economic issues, though they despise globalism and do not care for multi-culturalism. Also another different than the Religous Right and a similarity they share with the Democratic working class conservatives is there are a large number of Catholics in this group.
Conservative commentators in general play softball with their own party (trent Lott, Stgrom Thurmond & Jesse Helms apologists), while liberals vociferously maintain their stances even with regard to prominant democratic candidates. Centrist democrats may be as party-dogmatic as general conservatives, but this is in no way true of liberals.
President Clinton's economic plan deserves heavy-duty criticism--particularly the $190 billion worth of new boondoggles through FY 1998 that are euphemistically labelled `stimulus' and `investment' programs. But on one thing he has told the unvarnished truth. There is no way out of the elephantine budget deficits which have plagued the nation since 1981 without major tax increases.
You insult (and, oh yes, it was an insult; you fool no one on that point) the entire left half of the blogosphere with an observation plucked out of the air, and then you dare take umbrage at the fact that the insulted protest? I don't know about you, but when partisans go beyond respectful diagreement and impugn my intellectual independence, I will damn well react with some pretty well deserved displeasure.
David Ehrenstein, you cut my post up pretty well from the standpoint of laughing at everything I said, but I can't find any rebuttals with which to maintain any sort of debate. Just assertions, with a pretty strong dose of not-very-well hidden racism toward the abilities and human value of the Iraqi people. I know you didn't mean it that way, it just seems to me as though you--and Rick, too, actually--may be a little too quick to assert those two populations had a better future on 9/10/01 than they do now. You divine somehow that I know little about the MidEast, and that is why everything I said was so funny. But, I actually know a pretty good bit, for an American, about other peoples of the world, being an oilfield drilling fluid tech has travelled me the whole planet, wherever drlng rigs exist. Mostly in South America, but the international oil patch crowd is small, and I know several people very well who've spent years with Aramco, and I've met their own engineers at various training schools in Houston over the years. Trust me, the people over there are in a pot of trouble now, but it was orders of magnitude worse for these very-much-worth-trying-to-help people, psychologically, if not else, before the USA started sorting out the bad guys. This has been and will be messy, but what it is trying to correct is infinitely worse, as you both will realize if you honestly answered those 'yes/no' questions above. Regards, and thanks for reading.
http://www.tolstoy.com/lonewacko/blog/archives/000293.html
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
Are we safer now than before the Iraq adventure? I believe we are...tho obviously thats just intuition. Had we not reacted strongly, and began checking tyrannies off the list of real-estate owners, as a response to the war that has really been being made on us since 1979, then, yes, it seems to me as though the 9/11 damage to the Western financial system, and the damage to American morale, was such a victory for the terrorists that they would've by now piled a few more on, hoping to break the USA/Israel alliance, and to drive our commercial interests out of the lands of Islam, and to further split us from allies around the world. Not such a terrible thing, really, if you are of an isolationist persuasion--as many folks are. But, hard for this country to take, so, yes, I believe there would have been more 9/11 attacks, as many as could be mounted, until those jihadist goals were achieved. But, we fought back, and are hurting them, and as a result we are safer now. But, we could be even safer, at least for a generation, if we just withdrew, and forgot about the rest of the world and the people in it. That's what I think today, since you asked, Thersites. But a lot of this has been and will be self-fulfilling prophecy, so we are probably safer when we present a stern, united front...guess that's why I'm pecking on this keyboard at midnight. And, thanks for your nice tone, some of these people are mean, reading their replies makes my ears burn.
Another thing, I think the large libertarian bend is seen in the blogosphere not because libertarians are attracted to it more, but because it is dominated mostly by men in their thirties to mid-forties (not surprisingly, passionate though not yet powerful) and these late boomers and early generation x'ers truly are more libertarian, especially the men. They tend to be: extremely libertarian, socially; no deep aversion to government, just manage it well with a tendency to favor lower taxes or a flat tax; had their balls so badly broken by the Steinem gang that they FREAK OUT at anything that might offend boomer women or younger, whom they all believe to be liberal, Ms women.
I truly believe these bloggers are very representative of their age group. Therefore, I do think we can predict the political future of this country by examining who blogs and what is written about. The middle aged are our leaders and these bloggers, and the age group they represent, are next to rule.
How did a post soliciting opinions on the practices of the left blogosphere vs. the right blogoshpere escalate into a unrestrained posting war of Left vs. Right, liberal media bias vs. corporate media led right wing conspiracy, You're a Nazi vs. No, you're a Nazi?
attack the man, sneer, deride, obfuscate, calumniate, belittle, troll...
All the more remarkable in view of the fact that I've written any number of posts strongly criticizing Ashcroft, "religious zealots," and what Rand herself called the "New Facism."
But I've often found that a deficit in reasoning skills is accompanied by a lack of reading comprehension. [Ha; sorry, but I couldn't resist -- and I *was* provoked!]
2001: We will not run deficits.
2002: We will run deficits, but not for long.
2003: Deficits don't matter.As an Ayn Rand Republican, I will continue to pull the lever for the GOP in the future, because it IS the future.
You're 17, right?
In contrast, the left can't allow real life events to get in the way of the organizing theory. Anything that contradicts the prevailing wisdom must be refuted, or somehow bashed into shape so that it fits the theory.
"As for the right-leaning blogosphere, it's really more libertarian than anything else. And libertarian (with a small ell) is, by definition, not boxed in by ideology. "
Yes, it goes on and on my friend,
Some people started posting it
not knowing what it was
Now they'll continue posting it
forever just because....
Yes, it goes on and on my friend,
....
The fact you can't distinguish between them, or perceive current differences, is more a reflection on your lack of understanding. Whether that misunderstanding is because of lack of analytic ability, or simply being misinformed, is a question for you to ponder.
What's worse is that in many cases, the folks repeating the talking points seem to think they have all the facts on the issue and are better informed than anyone else as a result - they aren't even aware, or don't care, that they've only been presented with one side of the issue.
those offspring of the Tory loyalists, to appologize for their support of the crown and potentate and for their stand against our founding fathers during the American Revolution.
Until that happens I will remain crouched behind a field stone wall, or hidden among the fallen leaves that encircle the tree of liberty. Vigilant, like a rattle snake coiled to strike at the first sign of Tory despotism. I am no Tory. I am a patriot.
Until I am assured that the legacy of the Tory oppressor has been forever cast from our native shores I pledge to never eat another clootie dumpling! Not one! Heed my warning Saxon Tory dogs! Not one single god damned clootie dumpling.
"Dittos" to Matthew, Welchie, and glorybb. Larsen, I hear ya Buddy even if you are off topic and dont believe in those paragraph thingies.
From Andrew Sullivan's always-entertaining site:
Post a comment
Y'all! MT hears you — just click once to see your comment posted.
Syndicate this Site: XML or RDF
E-mail me -at- patrickruffini.com
LATEST RANTS
ALL ARCHIVES
Warning: main(archivelist.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2294
Warning: main(archivelist.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2294
Warning: main(): Failed opening 'archivelist.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/php/includes:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2294
SEPTEMBER 11 - 30, 2001
SEPTEMBER 1 - 11, 2001
AUGUST 16 - 31, 2001
AUGUST 1 - 15, 2001
JULY 16 - 31, 2001
JULY 9 - 15, 2001
Warning: main(footer.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2331
Warning: main(footer.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2331
Warning: main(): Failed opening 'footer.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/php/includes:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /home/virtual/site331/fst/var/www/html/rants/001198.php on line 2331