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 leani
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.