In a comment to Ann Althouse‘s post referencing my theory on Althouse Derangement Syndrome, her reader John opined on how the left and right handle their ideological adversaries:
Ann is very much a centrist. Further her site is sometimes funny and almost always interesting. Who cares if she toes the right or left line as long as she is entertaining. That is the real difference between the left and right. The right can look at someone they disagree with and still appreciate them being a smart, intelligent and entertaining person. The left can never admit any unqualified virtues of anyone who disagrees with them. For the left it is all about emotion, good versus evil kind of stuff. I think for most leftist, politics rather than an intellectual endeavor is a personal, emotional endeavor about working out whatever issues they may have. For them, the personal really is the political.
Emphasis added. His remarks echo something Camille Paglia said yesterday on her blog:
For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I’m not kidding — there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It’s a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.
And recall, that Paglia, like Althouse, voted for Obama last fall, with the former diva more optimistic about the president’s prospects.
I welcome your acceptance of Paglia’s take on things. I’ve enjoyed her column for years.
Paglia: 12/07
Paglia: 2/03
There’s much more if you’d like the links.
‘Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play’
Okay, that’s a point that can be defended, should the evidence be available. I’m just going to link to a Rachel Maddow clip from yesterday about lies in talking points and public statements from Republican officials:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30117559
I think you can ignore it after Eugene Robinson stars talking, cause i’m interested in the actual facts of it, rather than the opinions of talking heads.
There is, I admit, a difference, albeit not well understood, between CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN. But it seems like a very self congratulating brush to daub oneself with. No-one has a monopoly on honesty.
telling, torrent, that instead of addressing the point of the post, you’d resort to pulling up quotes criticizing Bush.
he’s no longer president, get over your obsession with him. Reminds me of how some guys dwell on their ex-boyfriends long after those former lovers have rejected them.
um, Scottland, while Rachel Maddow is certainly more engaging and entertaining than her MSNBC counterparts, I don’t think her show is a good resource on Republicans.
I mean, at least, as torrent’s quotes you, Paglia is no apologist for the GOP.
The only reason I bring it forward is because Paglia’s comments seemed to suggest that there is a contemporary strain of honesty in right wing opposition to liberalism. Maddow’s piece was on lies told by Republicans (Distorting independant findings and figures for budgets in particular) about the current Obama Adgenda (and, to a lesser extent, global warming).
I’m not saying that she is the be all and end all authority on Repubs or Conservatives at large, but on the issue of dealing with facts, it serves as an interesting report that offers a flipside, based in facts, about what Paglia has said, something that is, in all honesty and goodwill, an opinion. Have a look at the link, and tell me she’s wrong if she is. I’m not saying that it serves as an example of all right-wingers, but these are elected officials. Their behaviour must represent some facet of their constituencies. Otherwise, this isn’t a representative democracy that you’re talking about.
Oh, and I dont mean that George Will is an elected official. He’s just some guy.
Scottland, given the various demands on my time, I’m not going to seek out an incredibly biased source for information unless I intend to blog on it.
Perhaps, had you used her point to rebut the post, I might take the time to follow the link. But, you don’t. You merely cite somehow who only references Republicans to criticize them.
Distraction is TP’s usual modus operandi: if you can’t say anything smart, bash Bush.
Heres a reuters article on one of the issues talked about:
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/04/01/what-is-the-cost-of-staving-off-climate-change/
Reilly, the economist that is the source of the Republican numbers, has made statements calling the republican party’s use of his data ‘wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin’. And they have been using it for months. Michelle Bachman is the most recent individual.
Another point was on the widespread right-wing commentary that Bob Gates was gutting the defense budget. Sen. James Inhofe has been blogging about defense cuts, which doesn’t seem to be held up by the numbers, seeing as defense is going from $513B to $534B, although the money is being allocated in different ways. (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com have this information)
You can find info about this everywhere, I was only pointing to Maddow because she, y’know, was quoting other people, referencing sources and stuff. Bias is Bias, but referencing is referencing. She found republicans lying about either the official record or independant research. You can trot out a bunch of democrats, British tories or labour party members who are guilty of the same crime. The bottom line is the Paglia’s statement is nonsense. Nobody has a monopoly on honesty or fair play. ESPECIALLY in politics.
And, on the bias front, I’d be interested in knowing your opinion of the likes of Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!, and where they stand in your ideological spectrum.
so the right isn’t using emotion when they say things like allowing gay marriage will destroy the social fabric of our country and, quite literally, lead to the end of western civilization? not appealing to emotions there? no, just facts, right?
No, for the most part, the argument goes that marriage and family are the building blocks of stable societies. Privileging relationships that are neither stable, nor committed, nor family-centered devalues marriage and so destabilizes society. That’s logic, not emotion.
Emotion is when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of hating you.
(Do I expect boob to understand this argument? No, it’s several grades above his reading level, but others will get it.)
No she didn’t. Madcow (Olberfrau wannabe) used bullshit to insist that Republicans were full of it. Not to mention that WaPo publishing 4 articles, by liberals, proves that George Will is lying. Huh?
No wonder liberals find MSNBC-BC to be so wonderful.
#11
Is that anything like the left asserting that support for Bush would encourage more black churches to be burned? Or how about the assertion that voting for Bush would be support for reinstating the draft? Or how about when liberals asserted that gays are pedophiles? Or that the Bush administration was establishing a theocracy? Or that the Bush Republicans wanted endless war? Or that Iraq was only about stealing their oil? Or that McCain stated support for staying in Iraq for 100 years? Or that we torture prisoners? Or that prisoners captured on the battlefield HAVE to be charged with a crime in order to preserve our Constitution? Or that Bush compromised our national security by leaking the name of a super double secret CIA agent but CIA leaks to the al-Qaeda times weren’t? Or that Iraq was another Vietnam? Or asserting that, somehow, our country was less safe after zero further attacks on our country and thousands of al-Qaeda captured or killed? Or that the 110th Congress was elected to do the “will of the people” and then they did nothing.
I can go on, if you like. Those were just “facts” right?
TGC, I concede that Maddow’s not the most authoritative source on republicans out there. Neither is Paglia. Frankly, her opinion relies as much on, in the parlance of our times, bullshit, as Maddow does.
Conservatives and facts? Uh, have you ever heard of Fox ‘News’ Channel. Conservatives and facts is an oxymoron.
I think it has to do with whether people think they are morally right or not. When you think you are on the side of morality, then the other side automatically is “immoral” and therefore evil.
You see this on the Right with people who are against various things, against liberty, wanting to enforce their morality. You can’t legalize drugs because drugs are “wrong” and if you want they get angry and upset that you are promoting drug use. There is no possibility in your head that you just believe that sure they are usually bad for you but you can’t force other people to make good decisions only advise them.
On the Left it’s the same, wanting to enforce morality, just a different set of morals. And if you disagree, then you are selfish, evil, greedy. They don’t seem to understand you can’t force people to be good and unselfish.
The last chapter of “The Once and Future King” is hilarious for this. He goes on criticizing religion saying that “you must die to yourself” is silly because people just aren’t capable of complete selflessness in general, and giving people advice that is impractical to follow is “worthless”. But then he turns around and says (paraphrasing) “if nobody had a sense or feeling of property then” we’d have peace. He doesn’t see this is equally impractical.
For me the reason I changed from a socialist to libertarian wasn’t the notion of “doing good” or “justice” it was pure practicality. Throughout history the ones who wanted to do “good” were always the ones doing the enslaving and murdering, not just the ones nakedly craving power. but throughout history there’s only been a few instances when the poor rose out of backbreaking crushing poverty, and each time it they had free enterprise and liberty and property rights.
The Left (and some on the Right) want to take that away from them. They are focused on INTENT. That unless you intend to do good your actions don’t mean anything. But intent means nothing it’s actions and their effects that mean something. If something results in good – poor people becoming wealthier and happier – then that must be the right way. No matter if it rewards selfishness or not.
#16 – NJ Lib, please provide evidence of any so-called “lies” by Fox News, otherwise I call BS.
Incidentally, FNC is much more solid on their reporting than Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather and Mary “I Got Fired For Being Lazy And Reading DNC Talking Points” Mapes.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
#18: Peter, when a liberal references Fox News the way NJ Liberal has, the only thing you can be absolutely certain of is that the person has never actually watched the channel for one split second. I always ask the question, but NEVER get an answer–if Fox News is just right-wing lies, slander and propaganda 24 hours a day, then why are so many liberals working there as on-air correspondents? You can turn on Fox any time, day or night, and you will see the same thing: ultra-liberal fools debating conservatives on the issues of the day. And that applies to both their news programming and their commentary shows. The liberal viewpoint is ALWAYS represented in the debate on every issue. Meanwhile, Olbermann goes on the air, calls Bush a war-mongering dolt in segment one, has a liberal guest on in segment 2 who reminds him that Bush is also Hitler, and another liberal guest in segment 3 to confirm that Bush is both a war-mongering dolt AND Hitler. Roll credits.
P.S. I’ve also noticed that on Hannity’s show, the debates now have an interesting twist–he has on a conservative, a liberal, and someone from entertainment like a country singer or a broadway actress. It’s actually pretty cool (and original).
“Privileging relationships that are neither stable, nor committed, nor family-centered devalues marriage and so destabilizes society. That’s logic, not emotion.”
Uh, please explain how trashing my relationship by calling it neither stable (3 years and counting, many have decades under their belt), committed (we’re monogamous and we’re certainly NOT the only ones), family centered (Holidays are spent with BOTH sides of the family) please explain how those apply to me, or to the majority of gay couples, and how straight couples in NO way are EVER instable, uncommited, and anti-family.
And how is it logical, and not emotional, to deal exclusively in absolutes?
Yes, the republicans are more logical. It’s just not earth logic.