One of Jeff Horwich’s questions last night was one that I should have been ready for – but wasn’t.
It was (and I’m paraphrasing fairly closely here) Why aren’t conservatives out there protesting?
I responded with a quip about people having day jobs and mortages and kids to take care of – to which Erica responded “But I have a day job too…”
Of course, my response was all wrong. And while I pride myself on usually getting those “woulda coulda shoulda” responses out there in time most of the time, I kinda woofed that one.
So if you happen to listen to the broadcast on MPR tonight, please fill in the following answer for that question.
“Jeff, I think the difference is that conservatism isn’t fundamentally about emotions, or their expression.
Liberalism – or the left, anyway – is really a co-option (good or cynical, or a little of both, really) of a lot of things most of us are taught as kids; share with people, be nice, don’t fight, you’ll shoot your eye out with that gun. That kind of thing. Now, it adds some grownup things, like a legal imperative and, in extreme cases, a certain pseudo-religious ardor – but at the end of the day liberalism is just an institutionalized version of things we all learned in kindergarten.
Conservatism is not about emotions, usually; it’s something that doesn’t come easily to a lot of people, since it’s something you have to think hard about, and in some ways on the surface it seems to fly in the face of things we’re brought up to believe. You share, or be nice, or quit fighting, not because mommy or the government tell you to, but because it’s the right thing to do. And you realize that there’s complexity to all these things; sharing in the form of charity is good, while welfare has and causes serious problems. Fighting is bad, but sometimes it’s necessary to defend yourself, your family, and your country. That kind of thing.
So if you consider that becoming a real conservative is largely a solitary, intellectual journey rather than an emotional wave one gets swept up in, it makes a lot more sense that we’re not out there waving signs and threatening to, say, bum-rush Erica’s convention, to pick a random example.
Maybe next time…
UPDATE: Troy, in the comment section, had a good point. Changed accordingly.
All of you voicing over my radio appearance; Take Two!
Sure Mitch.
Explain what it meant by “it adds some grownup things, like… a certain pseudo-religious ardor”.
What part are you having trouble with?
To a childlike adherence to sloganeering, the left adds reason-less faith.
Doug said: “Paul, you’ve used that old hackneyed joke at least three times. It wasn’t funny the first time you used it so what makes you think it would be funny the second or third time?”
To paraphrase your own words, Doug, I post it because it’s entertaining to me.
Also because you’ve never refuted it, like every other time you respond with “Can’t you come up with something new?”
Doug said: “When I first started posting here, I mentioned that I had quit my job in Bloomington and got a job working in retail so I didn’t have to commute 75 miles one way and could spend time with my kids while they were young. For a while, I kept my sense of humor when kermit for example took what I consider good natured jabs at me but others joined in and the jabs became attacks and the attacks became increasingly personal.
I responded in kind.”
Funny how you left out your dishonesty, disingenuousness, and condescension involved in your commentary, Doug.
You accusingly posted “every poor conservative is an innocent victim,” and now claim innocent victimhood yourself. Can you appreciate the delicious irony?
I had to pound on him again:
Doug said: “You have a snapshot of who you think I am based on a few reactionary posts in a blog.”
You reveal far more than you think, Mr. Doug.
Mitch said,
“To a childlike adherence to sloganeering, the left adds reason-less faith.”
Apparently those are qualities you value considering you voted for, support and have faith in George W. Bush – the posterboy for sloganeering and reason-less faith.
No Mitch, what I was refing to Mitch was your choice to use the phrase “pseudo-religious ardor”. Give me an example Mitch and illustrate for me the component of pseudo-religion.
Paul droned,
“Also because you’ve never refuted it, like every other time you respond with “Can’t you come up with something new?””
I’ve never refuted your insinuation that I ejaculated on my monitor? Gee, you’re right Paul. I didn’t refute that although since I thought you were simply attempting to be funny, which you weren’t, I didn’t think there was a real need to refute anything.
You can let go of your fantasy now Paul. Find some other guy to obsess over OK?
“Funny how you left out your dishonesty, disingenuousness, and condescension involved in your commentary”
Funny how you are oblivious to those qualities when delivered by yourself and your peers.
“You accusingly posted “every poor conservative is an innocent victim,” and now claim innocent victim hood yourself. Can you appreciate the delicious irony?”
First Paul, I’m not claiming to be an innocent victim. Mitch accused me of dehumanizing other visitors to this blog. I simply pointed out A. Where it started B. Who started it and C. The fact that Mitch and apparently you are oblivious to the infractions when delivered by members of your own little clique. If I felt like a victim, I wouldn’t keep coming back. Further Paul, when I deliver back what I was hit with, I could hardly claim victim status now could I.
Second Paul, notice that I didn’t attempt to speak for other left leaning folks that comment here. Compare that with the link I posted before.
http://mfc.org/freedomfamilyrally.htm
Notice the difference Paul?
Mitch’s flavor of conservative speaks of group martyrdom and of group persecution. When I said, “every poor conservative is an innocent victim”, It is because that is they way that your side refers to themselves.
That isn’t me framing it that way, it’s you.
Oh, and Paul? When you say things like “delicious irony”, it explains why you have a recurring fantasy about me masturbating. You reveal more than you think Mr. Paul.
Find some other guy to obsess over OK?
COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH HACK HACK COUGH COUGH COUGH
Mitch accused me of dehumanizing other visitors to this blog.
Actually, I believe I accused you of dehumanizing conservatives.
Apparently those are qualities you value considering you voted for, support and have faith in George W. Bush
Nope. Incorrect.
While I have my differences with Bush (I was a Forbes supporter in 2000, for reasons that have been amply vindicated), I had genuine considered reasons for choosing Bush over the vacuous Algore.
No Mitch, what I was refing to Mitch was your choice to use the phrase “pseudo-religious ardor”. Give me an example Mitch and illustrate for me the component of pseudo-religion.
Example: component.
Global Warming: Blind, intolerant, eliminationist adherence to a belief whose scientific basis is still very much under debate.
Iraq: Dogmatic adherence to premises handed down by an arbitrary hierarchy (BUSH LIED!); willful ignorance and abjuration of things that hierarchy chooses to have ignored.
Economic intervention, gun control, compulsory education, massive social spending, “wars on poverty”: Rigid faith, in the absence (or abeyance) of evidence of any correlation, that any of these programs achieves, or can achieve, their stated goals; dogmatic belief that even without that evidence, pursuing each with dogged determination is itself a good.
Republicans: Belief (as amply shown in the alternative media and in your own comments, Doug) that conservatism is not only wrong, but deeply morally defective.
Mitch said,
“Actually, I believe I accused you of dehumanizing conservatives.”
Actually Mitch, your exact words were, “dehumanize people who disagree with you” but that’s beside the point. I guess it’s just ducky for your “conservative” buddies to “dehumanize” liberals who they disagree with but not the other way around.
“Global Warming: Blind, intolerant, eliminationist adherence to a belief whose scientific basis is still very much under debate.
Blind
928 peer reviewed studies, and multiple organizations and institutions all coming to the conclusion that “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations””
But in Mitch world, that means blind.
intolerant
Nobody is stopping you from presenting data that disputes the IPCC’s findings. In fact, because I am a glutton for punishment, I listen to right wing radio and I hear them constantly pushing the right wing rebuttal to climate change claims. The few times that I have managed to get on air to argue the upside to taking the IPCC’s findings seriously, I’m the one that’s been cut off.
“eliminationist adherence to a belief whose scientific basis is still very much under debate”
If it’s still under debate, why has your side concluded with absolute certainty that climate change IS NOT related to man’s activities?
Next: The war on Iraq.
Dogmatic adherence to premises…
Dogmatic adherence to premises handed down by an arbitrary hierarchy (Iraq has WMD’s!); willful ignorance and abjuration of things that hierarchy chooses to have ignored.
What else…?
Economic recklessness, refusal to even consider any discussion of gun control, redistribution of education resources, massive military spending, “wars against those affected by poverty”: Rigid faith that says those affected by poverty can simply overcome economic hardships if they would just bathe and get a job.
Democrats: Belief (as amply shown in the alternative media and in your own comments, Mitch) that liberalism is not only wrong, but a social disease.
Like I’ve said before Mitch, you’re guilty of committing the same actions you criticize those you criticize but you’re too arrogant to see it.
I thought you were simply attempting to be funny, which you weren’t
What are you, Goebbels’ disciple? Repeat it enough and it isn’t true?
Funny how you are oblivious to those qualities when delivered by yourself and your peers.
Doug, if you wave your dick around in people’s faces, you shouldn’t be surprised when it gets Bobbitted.
I’m not claiming to be an innocent victim.
Then stop whining!
I could hardly claim victim status now could I.
Oh yes you could! And did! Do you really want me to link to your whiny victim comments in other posts?
Find some other guy to obsess over OK?
Should we do a word count? Why do you think Mitch wrote COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH HACK HACK COUGH COUGH COUGH? Hmmn?
Second Paul, notice that I didn’t attempt to speak for other left leaning folks that comment here. Compare that with the link I posted before.
http://mfc.org/freedomfamilyrally.htm
Notice the difference Paul?
So? Never said you did.
When you say things like “delicious irony”, it explains why you have a recurring fantasy about me masturbating.
No, I just simply observe your Liberal *spraying* of this comments section and your ecstasy after supposedly getting one over us, and simply take it to its logical
climaxconclusion.Paul said,
What are you, Goebbels’ disciple? Repeat it enough and it isn’t true?”
huh?
Doug, if you wave your dick around in people’s faces, you shouldn’t be surprised when it gets Bobbitted.
Paul. Get your mind off my junk.
“Do you really want me to link to your whiny victim comments in other posts?”
Yes please and you can start with this one… Paul, please quit talking about my pen1s because it makes me feel very uncomfortable and unsafe.
That’s a gimme.
“Should we do a word count?”
OK.
Doug, – if – you – wave – your – dick – around – in – people’s – faces, – you – shouldn’t – be – surprised – when – it gets – Bobbitted.
I count 18. Yup. I would say that qualifies as obsessing.
Why do you think Mitch wrote COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH HACK HACK COUGH COUGH COUGH? Hmmn?
I’m guessing he either has allergies or you didn’t give him any warning.
I just simply observe your Liberal *spraying* of this comments section and your ecstasy after supposedly getting one over us
Please Paul. This place is like a Dick Cheney hunting trip. There’s easy game everywhere and I don’t even have to be a good shot to knock em down.
Now for Doug’s other post:
Blind 928 peer reviewed studies, and multiple organizations and institutions all coming to the conclusion that “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations””
Any of them use the scientific method to make those determinations?
intolerant Nobody is stopping you from presenting data that disputes the IPCC’s findings. In fact, because I am a glutton for punishment, I listen to right wing radio and I hear them constantly pushing the right wing rebuttal to climate change claims. The few times that I have managed to get on air to argue the upside to taking the IPCC’s findings seriously, I’m the one that’s been cut off.
Care to name exactly which shows have cut you off after taking your call? The good show hosts (Limbaugh, Medved) burn up entire segments letting liberal callers talk.
“eliminationist adherence to a belief whose scientific basis is still very much under debate” If it’s still under debate, why has your side concluded with absolute certainty that climate change IS NOT related to man’s activities?
Because no one has proved that it is. Those who argue that it is aren’t using the scientific method to prove it. You see, the scientific method was created to remove foregone conclusions marinated in politics and emotion from scientific study. Something the Left is awash in.
Dogmatic adherence to premises… Dogmatic adherence to premises handed down by an arbitrary hierarchy (Iraq has WMD’s!); willful ignorance and abjuration of things that hierarchy chooses to have ignored.
Even Bill Clinton thought he had them.
Economic recklessness
Seen the DFL’s spending proposals? Or the Dems in Congress? What do you think they tied to the military appropriations bill?
refusal to even consider any discussion of gun control
Really? Ever bother to actually read the NRA’s platform?
redistribution of education resources
Ever do a study of how much of each dollar spent on education actually is spent on a student’s education? I’d say thirty cents, but I’m an optimist.
massive military spending
Compared to what? Try comparing military spending to what the Department of Health and Human Services consumes. If HHS were a country, it would be the third largest economy in the world.
“wars against those affected by poverty”: Rigid faith that says those affected by poverty can simply overcome economic hardships if they would just bathe and get a job.
The trades are suffering from very low numbers of qualified workers. For instance, the Sheet Metal Worker’s union has their own school for apprentices. The Carpenter’s union is busy setting up their own, and so are many of the others. The Schiederman Truck Company has their own training classes to start out drivers. All of these are good jobs waiting for poverty-stricken individuals to take them, and get paid while they train. Why do you think there are recruitment commercials in broadcast media from each of these organizations?
Democrats: Belief (as amply shown in the alternative media and in your own comments, Mitch) that liberalism is not only wrong, but a social disease.
Like I’ve said before Mitch, you’re guilty of committing the same actions you criticize those you criticize but you’re too arrogant to see it.
Ah yes. The Liberal Moral Equivalence.
Paul: “Should we do a word count?”
Doug:”OK.
Doug, – if – you – wave – your – dick – around – in – people’s – faces, – you – shouldn’t – be – surprised – when – it gets – Bobbitted.
I count 18. Yup. I would say that qualifies as obsessing.”
No silly, you were supposed to count your own!
This place is like a Dick Cheney hunting trip. There’s easy game everywhere and I don’t even have to be a good shot to knock em down.
That’s because you *sprayed* them all.
As usual, Doug simply avoids the questions.
Or simply puts in answers that he knows aren’t true or correct.
Paul said,
Any of them use the scientific method to make those determinations?”
In as far as using modeling in testing the hypothesis? Yes Paul. We can’t recreate the entire system in a lab but that’s irrelevent to my point. Mitch made the assertion that Liberals ignorantly accept the global warming story without considering the counter argument. That’s pure arrogance. Maybe Paul, the counter argument just isn’t strong enough or you haven’t been able to articulate your position adequately but to assume that this is describing and exclusively liberal quality is bullshit.
“Care to name exactly which shows have cut you off after taking your call?”
I’ve been on Jason Jewis twice, I’ve been on Garage Logic and multiple times with both Bob Davis and Dave Thompson.
Because no one has proved that it is
It doesn’t matter. Your side is doing the same thing that some on the left are doing by claiming something emphatically without conclusive evidence. Again Paul, we’re not really talking about whether or not global warming is caused by man. We’re talking about how the right is equally guilty of “eliminationist adherence to a belief” a claim that Mitch said was exclusive to liberals.
Even Bill Clinton thought he had them.
Irrelevent. The context was “Dogmatic adherence to premises” not a discussion of whether or not Iraq had WMD’s.
The rest of your responses are irrelevent as well since you seem to have completely missed the point of the post. I wasn’t debating the topics Paul. I was mirroring Mitch’s flawed generalizations.
the counter argument just isn’t strong enough or you haven’t been able to articulate your position adequately but to assume that this is describing and exclusively liberal quality is bullshit.
If you knew what the scientific method was, Doug, you wouldn’t have written such a statement.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
I’ve been on Jason Jewis twice, I’ve been on Garage Logic and multiple times with both Bob Davis and Dave Thompson.
If what you have written here on this blog is the best you can come up with (consensus!) and you spent your calls slinging this same material over and over again, that is why you got cut off. You made your point, time to move on, give other callers a chance.
We’re talking about how the right is equally guilty of “eliminationist adherence to a belief” a claim that Mitch said was exclusive to liberals.
Equally guilty? Not quite. If that were true, Rudy G. would be forced to change his position on many issues just to be considered for the 2008 presidential nomination. As opposed to Joe Lieberman, who was run out of the Democratic Party because he dared to hold a similar platform to JFK.
Mitch characterized: “Global Warming: Blind, intolerant, eliminationist adherence to a belief whose scientific basis is still very much under debate.”
Here’s somebody who agrees with Mitch:
http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
Paul said,
“If you knew what the scientific method was, Doug, you wouldn’t have written such a statement.”
Let’s see. I believe the terms you used were arrogant and condescending. In your case I would add smug.
“If what you have written… …that is why you got cut off.”
False conclusion. Unless you were listening when I called, you really have zero idea WHY I was cut off. You don’t even have the foggiest idea what the specifics of my call were and yet you are somehow able to deduce why I was cut off? Arrogant, condescending and smug. And wrong.
“If that were true, Rudy G. would be forced to change his position on many issues just to be considered for the 2008 presidential nomination.”
You mean like he did with his position on banning partial birth abortion? Public funding for abortion? Flat Tax?
“As opposed to Joe Lieberman, who was run out of the Democratic Party because he dared to hold a similar platform to JFK.”
Joe Lieberman wasn’t run out of anything. He lost in a primary election. And the dissatisfaction with Lieberman had nothing to do with a similar platform to JFK. It was his position on the Iraq war and his refusal to challenge and hold Bush accountable.
Your twisting of logic is as breathtakingly absurd as it is pathetic.