AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I believe I did answer Joe's question. I don't expect Joe or any of you to admit that I did, but I did.

McGentrix wrote:

You have no subtlety. You are like an 13 year old young man [..]. Someday you will understand what adulthood and conversation with people not exactly like you is actually about.

I heartily share your sentiments about Cyclo's rude prickness and general cock-brandishing behaviour. It's tiresome, and makes me scroll past his posts when substantively, I usually agree with him. Sorry, Cyclo, but you're one of the worst on the left here when it comes to acting like a total prick. And of course you don't care about insulting rightwingers - I buy your argument about why you have stopped giving a ****, just like McG doesnt give a **** about the liberals he insults. But you know, it's not just the conservatives you insult who are annoyed and fatigued by your shtick.

Ask Robin: A Recovering Liberal Addresses Some of Your Burning Questions
(By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker, June 3, 2009)

Dear Robin:

How can we trust that you are really who you say you are? How do we know you are not a liberal impersonating a conservative?

Marty

Hi Marty:

Busted! My articles are actually ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.

Don't sweat it, Mart-T, my conscientious editor at American Thinker, a Bay Area guy, has met and vetted me. So I'm for real. Anyway, dude, do you think I could make this stuff up?

Dear Robin:

What draws otherwise smart people to being a progressive liberal? How do they accept the generalized hate?

Julia

Hey Julia:

Let me speak for myself here.

My liberal turn on's: (This is like Match.com)
1. It was exciting: I was a bored, lost suburban kid growing up in a secular Jewish home with no direction to speak of. I spent too much time alone watching TV. My parents were heavy drinkers and partiers, and my brother hated me from the day I was born and made my life a living hell. So, it wasn't a blast, and when I got into my teens, I numbed it all out with drugs. Doing political work in young adulthood, I suddenly had a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning. Working with others in groups, marching with thousands of people, was not only an emotional high but a physical thrill, almost like an aphrodisiac. A legal high. And feeling like you're saving the world is positively orgasmic.

2. The Left is seen as cool. The Right is viewed as stodgy, dull, and selfish. Franken is cool. Newt is not. And many of us drawn to the Left were unpopular, lonely children. By being far left, a bunch of misfits can fit in.

3. It was all I knew. Info in Liberalville is censored and you believe what you hear. It becomes a form of brainwashing. And everyone around me was Left. We're pack animals and tend to follow the herd, for better or for worse.

4. Being progressive (what a high falootin' word) makes you feel good about yourself: generous, altruistic, ever loving and accepting (even though they wish terminal diseases on conservatives). "We can save the world, rearrange the world, it's dying to get better." (Crosby, Still, etc.) Who can argue with that ego trip:?

OK, now for turn off's:
1. Frankly, there have been a lot of things that have bugged the crap out of me for years (maybe this was why it was easier for me to wake up). The rampant street crime and aggressive panhandling are totally out of control. And liberals excusing antisocial behavior ("He didn't mean to beat the living daylights out of that little old lady, he is a victim of white privilege, blah blah blah,") makes me want to hurl. They need their own recovery program for mega codependency (LibCo?).

2. The Left portrays itself as mellow and chill, but bigger control freaks you have never seen in your life. The Berkeley laws are draconian. Try finding a parking lot since none are available; cars are the devil's handiwork. The city restricts business licenses (again, to keep out those bloody cars) so I had to open my office in a nearby town. And light up a cigarette and watch a menacing crowd encircle you; Berkeley has outlawed smoking in almost every outdoor locale.

I can go on and on. . . But you get the point. Big Brother is alive and well in Berkeley, though he's traveling high on the hog via Air Force One these days.

3. The mean stuff. I just don't do mean. Love Ellen, Detest Janeane. Even when I was a liberal, I was nice one (by Berkeley, though not Alabama, standards). And my spiritual faith compels me to treat others with respect. But even though I'm nice, I'm not sweet. I don't put up with crap. But I'm generally nice about it.

So, looking back, the seeds of conservatism were in me all along. And when I got older and wiser, the party got meaner and greener (don't get me started on the green fascism out here). I can't speak for every liberal but this is my tale. In the end, humans are rather simple creatures. We stay with the familiar until it becomes unbearable and we have another option. Liberalism didn't work for me anymore. Let's hope many others reach the same conclusion by 2010.

Dear Robin:

I don't forgive you. You indoctrinated our young people.

Phil

Yo Phil:

No worries. I never worked at the university or any other schools. And, anyway, you don't have to indoctrinate people in Berkeley. Everyone drinks from the same Kool-Aid.

Dear Robin:

Ooh, get me a tissue box. You and your readers are weak.

Sam

Hey Sam:

I have three responses to your letter. One: it's offensive and unseemly to mock my readers and me.

Two: your being so hostile to strangers makes me sad. Clearly one or both of your parents disrespected you and trampled on your feelings.

My upbringing was like that so I can relate. But I responded by never wanting to inflict the same type of pain on others. Take my word for it, Sam. It's much cooler to be kind.

Third: Bro, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.

Dear Robin:

You couldn't have been a liberal because you have a sense of humor.

Liz

Hello, Lizzy:

Funny you should say this! My motto in life is an old Wavy Gravy quote (no I wasn't at Woodstock): If you don't have a sense of humor, it's not funny!

The Left has become way too serious and sanctimonious for my tastes. But it wasn't always that way. I recently rented the first season of Maude, a show I enjoyed in my youth. I was astonished at how Maude, the white liberal, is affectionately teased throughout for her preachy white guilt. When she goes shopping for a "maid" (that's what they called them then), she insists on hiring a black one to "help" some needy person. When the confident Florida shows up, Maude is so condescending that Florida quits. Florida explains, "I'd rather work for a racist than a white liberal because at least racists won't try to change me." They reconcile, of course, and Florida is a major player on the show, reflecting back to Maude her patronizing ways. The lesson back then to whites: lighten up and laugh at yourself. And be very careful that your crusade for social justice isn't just another form of white arrogance.

If this show ran today, it wouldn't have lasted one episode (the Left would have rioted). And yet it was a runaway hit in the 1970's. Watching it bummed me out. How far we've come, or we've sunk, courtesy of the Thought Police. And liberals say conservatives are uptight and boring!

(By the way, there's a new summer replacement comedy called The Goode Family on ABC on Wednesday at 9 pm which pokes fun at the liberal, PC Police. Irreverent and refreshing. I give it a month at best before the network pulls it in fear of the wrath of Big O.)

Later. . . Robin

I believe you owe Woody Allen credit for that line.

Woody Allen took it from Groucho Marx.

Foxfyre wrote:

I believe I did answer Joe's question. I don't expect Joe or any of you to admit that I did, but I did.

Hey, I said you did answer the question. Do you even read any of these posts?

Diest TKO wrote:

When asked to give single word yes/no answers, you become very flexible Fox.

Teflon Foxfyre. Nothing sticks, you can't be held accountable for anything you say or do if you just makes what you say and does too vague or too contrary.

Exactly. And when those pesky questions become too insistent, she throws in one red herring after another to deflect the subject, and if that doesn't work, starts demanding everyone to instead discuss something completely unrelated (Sotomayor).

Especially when it comes to political discussion. What is the point at the end of the day? The other side never admits that you are right. I've personally seen you deconstruct Fox or McG's or Ican's arguments time and time again, in this thread and others. And I mean really destroy them (just like occasionally you or GeorgeOB or Setanta will really bust up one of mine). And have they ever admitted it? Does anyone say 'gee, guess you're right?' No. There's no real productive movement over time.

The alternative is to lie.

joefromchicago wrote:

I believe you owe Woody Allen credit for that line.

joefromchicago wrote:

Woody Allen took it from Groucho Marx.

... who took it from Sigmund Freud, as every authentic fan of Annie Hall well knows. Maybe the Possum is right and you are a fraud after all?

Anyway, Sigmund Freud stole it from Bertrand Russell, who used it to illustrate a point of set theory. It was a rather avantgardistic point at the time (1900s or 1910s), so I don't think Russell plagiarized it from anyone. But I'm willing to be surprised.

Foxfyre wrote:

Your argument seems to be that our government has already moved from the Founding Fathers' concept of the General Welfare to allowing Congress to distributing the people's money for the privilege and/or advantage of special classes and we should just accept it as the way it is.

No, my argument consists of three points:

1. The founding fathers spoke plain English.
   
2. Noah Webster's first edition (1828) documents the meaning of plain English terms, as the founding generation used them.
   
3. Therefore, we can discern whether a modern phenomenon conforms with a term used in the constitution by looking up the term in Webster (1828) and seeing if it covers the phenomenon.

This concept is really quite simple. It's called "reading comprehension".

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you believe we should just accept things for the way they are in all cases? Illegal immigration? Graffiti? Subsidies to certain industries? Failing education? A crumbling manufacturing base?

No. You should change the things you don't like. You should change them by convincing your fellow Americans that the current administration isn't up for the job, and get them to elect a new Congress in 2010, and a new president in 2012. But judicial activism is the wrong instrument for social change. That's why I opposed it when liberals advocated it -- I have battle scars from both Debra Law and joefromchicago to prove it. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganter: If judicial activism is wrong for liberals, it's wrong for conservatives too. You, by contrast, seem to have become quite fond of it, now that the American people have been so un-American as to dump your party.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you see the only role of government to be one of adding spending, programs, initiatives, taxes, welfare, etc.? Is there no place in the equation to roll back these to a time when we did it better?

That's a good question. But it's a political question, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of expanding the welfare state. I'll answer it anyway: Yes, there is a role for government to decrease the scope of the welfare state, if that's what the American people elect it to do. But they haven't.

Okay I concede that you did acknowledge that I did, but the qualification you included could easily persuade one to believe that you thought it hardly an answer.

It was sort of like when you challenged me for the times that I had criticized President Bush, the Republicans, previous administration and I listed the posts. Those weren't to your satisfaction either, I suppose because I didn't use any hate language or swear words. But I don't use those in criticism of the Democrats or current administration either, so I guess I'm screwed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The alternative is to lie.

No. One can be perfectly honest and upfront about one's feelings and opinions without larding one's posts with insults and putdowns.

One can be perfectly honest about thinking the other is wrong and explaining why without all the time bragging about how superior you are and how stupid the other is. It doesn't underline your point, it distracts from it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I concede that you did acknowledge that I did, but the qualification you included could easily persuade one to believe that you thought it hardly an answer.

I considered your "yes" to be an answer. All the rest of that post was merely a long, pointless tangent.

Foxfyre wrote:

It was sort of like when you challenged me for the times that I had criticized President Bush, the Republicans, previous administration and I listed the posts. Those weren't to your satisfaction either, I suppose because I didn't use any hate language or swear words. But I don't use those in criticism of the Democrats or current administration either, so I guess I'm screwed.

No, those posts weren't satisfactory because they weren't the kind of contemporaneous criticisms of Bush administration economic policies that you claim to have made. And you still haven't produced any of those.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Especially when it comes to political discussion. What is the point at the end of the day? The other side never admits that you are right. I've personally seen you deconstruct Fox or McG's or Ican's arguments time and time again, in this thread and others. And I mean really destroy them (just like occasionally you or GeorgeOB or Setanta will really bust up one of mine). And have they ever admitted it? Does anyone say 'gee, guess you're right?' No. There's no real productive movement over time.

I think Milton Friedman, my first avatar on A2K, put it best when he said: "You can't persuade people in a discussion. At best you can give them the arguments with which they persuade themselves later." That said, I'm pretty sure I occasionally have said things like "guess you are right" on A2K. And I know for a fact that at least some of my error corrections, acknowledged or not, have been cumulative: If you go back to read what I wrote on A2K five years ago, you'll find me defending quite a few positions I don't hold anymore. Just be patient.

So, since you didn't refer to the point I was making, you then consider 'welfare' to be exactly the same thing as the 'general welfare'?

And since you can't seem to avoid arguing ad hominem, in what way have I proposed any kind of judicial activism on the court?

I also disagree that the American people have not elected leaders who decreased the scope of the welfare state. The so-called 'freshman class' of 1994

Woud you approve more socialization of America? Why?

I wasn't asked for extemporaneous criticisms of the Bush administration.