There are days when our critics do our work for us. By their very words, they discredit their own criticism (in some cases, criticism is a euphemism for what might more accurately be called name-calling).
In reply to my post on how some on the left go through life with blinders on making it tough for them to see conservatives, one of our regular critics offered that my partial listing of our posts taking issue with then-President Bush and free-spending Republican Congress “doesn’t refute [his] point about conservatives failing to criticize George Bush, it proves it.”
In Levi’s universe, we prove a point by showing it not to be true. And that listing was hardly an exhaustive survey of conservative criticism of W. (It didn’t even represent the complete universe of my criticism. Like I said in the post to which he attaches his criticism, “If you take a gander at archives of any number of conservative blogs, you’ll find a great variety of posts criticizing Bush and any number of aspects of his Administration.” (Emphasis added.)
He’ll find enough criticism to make his head swim. It was essays by my friend libertarian friend David Boaz of the Cato Institute and editorials in the Wall Street Journal which first made me aware of W’s failure to hold the line on domestic spending. And this before I started blogging.
But no bother to Levi. He’ll just look at what I linked, take a stroll through our archives during a period where I was blogging less than I am at present and say, “Is that all?” He didn’t bother to review other conservative blogs or the archives of conservative editorial pages.
For this critic his memory more accurately reflects reality than facts. “I’ll trust my memory of the first six years of the Bush administration over yours.” I never asked that he trust my memory, but that he, to quote my followup comment, “check the archives of any serious conservative blog.”
Recall, he contends that conservatives failed to criticize W, that we were somehow wedded to him. Um, Levi, I refused to vote for George W. Bush in the California primary in 2004 and wrote in Rudy Giuliani which I have stated numerous times on this blog. If only I were blogging at the time. But, I did express my views on a gay libertarian listserv. I’m making inquiries with the list owner to see if its archives are available from March 2004.
But, even if I do recover those e-mails, I doubt it would quiet Levi’s criticisms or those of countless others on the left beholden to their “myth” (in the negative connotation of the term) of conservatives as mind-numbed robots marching in lockstep to the commands of Dear Leader Bush, with his evil lieutenant Rove punishing any dissent from party orthodoxy.
I don’t know why it has been incumbent on so many such left-wingers to repeat this falsehood when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.
No matter what we say, it won’t alter their prejudice.
They’re just too beholden to this image of conservatives as unthinking, unreflective, narrow-minded followers. Is this some “truth” their professors taught them in college and which they’re scared to let go of, lest they realize conservatives have independent minds and serious ideas, that we’re not the hateful, spiteful troglodytes of their teachers’ imaginations?
And yet there’s something more to this particular prejudice, this notion that conservatives failed to criticize George W. Bush. It’s not just this one critic; it’s a pretty pervasive prejudice on the left. It has nothing to do with the way we are, but everything to do with how they see us.
It says something about how they define their intellectual and ideological adversaries. It’s exactly the same mentality that defines social conservatives who refuse to believe gay people can live sexually responsible lives.
Perhaps, it’s their need to see us as the type who require an authoritarian power structure to survive. It is interesting to see how many scholars conduct studies to try to define political conservatism as a psychological disorder. I’m not really sure why they need to define us as slavish followers of a decent man. But, they do. It is a matter which, I believe, merits further exploration. I don’t think are easy answers for those trying to understanding this prejudice.
But, one thing we do about those who share Levi’s bias; they paint with a broad brush and a narrow mind.
I don’t understand why people who are so against your views continuously read and make negative comments on here. Do they have no life?? I think they psychologically enjoy being angry all the time.
I don’t read left wing blogs, koz or the huffpo for the reason that I don’t want to waste my energy being angry at people I’ll never meet and frankly don’t matter to me.
Very strange.
#1 – Ditto to that. I suspect Dr. Freud would have something to say about that too.
And Dave, good on you for finally taking the gloves off after that moonbat troll constantly denigrated and insulted you and your work on this blog. If best wishes are $20 bills, you would be a millionaire now.
Regards,
Peter H.
I don’t understand why so much energy/effort/time is wasted responding to criticism of this blog when evidence to the contrary has been repeatedly provided. If a blog didn’t criticize Bush’s spending, it’s not a conservative blog. Who is more neurotic — those who continually criticize or those who continually refute?
Great criticism, Ignatius. Were I not a student of psychology, I might pay them no heed. But, there’s something to their behavior that fascinates me.
Fascinates in a good way or bad way? What is that something? The reason I ask is that your blog posts are defensive and indicate frustration. Their frequency plays into the hands (minds) of those intent on furthering the fallacy or simply trying to annoy or those too far gone to ever be convinced by any evidence. It makes no difference to me; by all means, carry on.
(For the record, I think Levi occasionally makes good points or at least points worthy of consideration, even if I disagree with most of his conclusions.)
Fair point, Ignatius. I appreciate your honesty in calling them “defensive;” I’ll have to review them. I find them speculative.
I’m just fascinated by anyone who would invest so much time in hating a group of people about whom they have limited knowledge. It’s this notion of projection, about which Jung writes much.
And I do agree, Levi does occasionally make some solid points. He actually had a good critique of conservatism buried amidst the bile of a comment he posted a week or so ago.
GPW: You’re establishing a case where, clearly and unequivocally, one of your leftist critics is plain nutso when it comes to the facts and could not care less about the facts.
All I can say is: You’re right. We’ve been encountering the phenomenon, over and over on this blog, for years.
Same here, OTV.
Point taken, GPW. Since you’re defending your record, perhaps I mistakenly read your refutation as defensive in demeanor rather than in mere content. Fascination duly noted.
I for one appreciate that you don’t respond in kind to those who spew. If we’re successful in debunking the myth that we’re self-loathing, perhaps we can move on to proving the rumor that we’re intent on converting. Levi isn’t a nutcase — he’s an opportunity.
If you mean that in a direct sense, i.e. that he personally is open: I don’t think he’s presented much evidence of that. I would go along with the statement if you meant it indirectly, i.e., as an opportunity for open-minded third parties to watch and lose a few prejudices.
But, there’s something to their behavior that fascinates me.
I do enjoy the speculation about why I come to this blog, but if its fascination that keeps you responding to me, why doesn’t it occur to you that I might be coming here for the same reasons – because I’m fascinated with you?
Since it seems to be a subject of some interest, I’m here because I got bored sitting around agreeing with liberals on my old message board. This is a lot more interesting, and it’s a lot more fun.
You guys that have mentioned that you don’t read or post at liberal blogs should try it some time. I have my own theories about why you don’t do it, but it seems counter-intuitive to be a political junkie that specifically avoids reading or arguing with differing viewpoints. As much as I am accused of not understanding conservatism, I’ve probably got a little bit better picture of it than some of the conservatives around here have of liberalism.
Contrary to popular belief, misery does NOT love company. I have no desire to expose myself to angry, miserable hate-filled bigots all the time. Tried it before, it was too depressing.
In light of Levi’s last comment, I think I have to agree that he is an opportunity. Although he admits his coming here was out of boredom, he found a motivation to expand his reading interests – and finds the conservative blogs “a lot more fun.”
I think that says a lot, and I agree that he often has good points for consideration (again, although I often feel the same as Ignatius on his conclusions – Love it, Ignatius!). Makes me think twice about my prior criticism because I can see that he is intelligent; but I find I am unable to dismiss my curiosity as to why he posts no link to his own work. Seeing his views in expanded form rather than comments scattered across others’ blogs, it would offer the reader (me) a chance to see exactly where he is coming from, how he found his way to where he is, and maybe even where he is headed next.
I have to admit that I, myself, read a wide range of sites, liberal, conservative, and everything in between. The only way I can get a full picture and make an informed choice is to try to see an issue from all sides – because there will always be more than one, or two, or fifty.
So, yes, I think there is definitely opportunity there. At least he is willing to pry himself away from the collective liberal nodding in agreement and at least LOOK at another side of the story – even if he does not agree with the author’s conclusions.
Eventually, *something* has to stick.
Oh Angie. He’s pulling the same crap Il Douche is pulling. He’s trying to talk like he’s intelligent to hoping like hell you won’t notice that he has no idea what he’s talking about. Just like Chairman Obama’s a mumbling idiot without his SorosPrompterâ„¢, Levi would be totally lost without his KOShole bullshit points.
Same song, different verse with boob.
At least bob comes right out and admits that he thinks President Obama should be more of a National Socialist.
TGC: 😉
I’d be willing to give Levi a little more credit if, as I stated, he would let us see his OWN stuff, instead of just “critiques” here. It’s kind of like a friend of mine told me about his tipping policy: Every waitperson starts at a 15% base, but for every act of stupidity, some is shaved off; for every act of exemplary service, some is added. We’ve walked out of establishments dropping 50s, other times dropping dimes. Is that like hopeNchange? LOL
I have to watch the O-Hole videos where he stumbles and bumbles and “can’t hear himself” – it’s the comic relief I need to offset the blatant irresponsibility I see coming out of his office and from his entire administration.
Farva is one of those leftists who lives in a snug little cocoon defined by his stereotypes of conservatives. Among the elements of this cocoon are…
– Conservatives never criticized Bush.
– Conservatives hate teh gheys.
– Conservatives are racists.
– Conservatives are dumb.
Nothing penetrates the cocoon.
It’s not a cocoon, that’s the sad thing.
It’s a little box, all mirrored on the inside.
Angie, I agree completely and I like your tipping analogy. (Mind if I borrow it?) We’ve all met folks who mindlessly repeat scripts or who cannot hold a rational discussion, such as “You do agree that George W. Bush is male, right?” “Well, I dunno…gender is very complex…but he’s an anachronistic vestige of a patriarchal system guilty of misogyny and genocide!” (You know the type.) Levi isn’t one of them. His command of the language is too good and he’s willing to concede the occasional premise, meaning he a) has at least an iota of respect for truth and b) isn’t so insecure that truth is an enemy.
I’m a missionary for freedom and I look at every liberal as an opportunity for conversion. Perhaps I’ll only be successful with a few, but if I can at the very least convince them that we’re not monsters and that we too seek truth and value what’s best for society, then my treating them respectfully has been worth it. Sometimes I’m nicer to lefties than righties for that very reason.
No. That’s the thing. He shows up, but only to vent: not to incorporate new information. Boring. Now, maybe people like Ignatius buy it, and maybe that makes Levi feel good about himself.
Levi, for your information: I was a hardcore liberal for at least 15 years (probably more) and have had many, many, many discussions with left-liberals where they were “with a friend” and telling me their real thoughts. That’s how I know, for example, that many (not all, but surprisingly many) left-liberals will say racist things to each other, unprompted, when they think it’s “just them chickens”. Even now, I have discussions with liberals every day at the lunch table (albeit not on the premise that I am one of them). And have you noticed what our nation’s media is like? Liberalism: we’re all soaking in it. Now, after all that soaking, it frankly shouldn’t surprise you that I have no interest in spending further and additional time on sites like Daily Kos, where there are liberals like you who are, in fact, impervious to the facts to be had on various topics.
In other words: For you, going to a conservative site is seeking out people and viewpoints that you don’t know and never interact with – so you can tell them how dumb they are or whatever. But for me, going to a liberal site is seeking out more of the people and viewpoints that I know intimately and already interact with plenty: more than enough, in fact.
Ignatius, except, by his own admission, he doesn’t read information given, so he doesn’t look at the other side of the story.
Such people are why there is so much mistrust, i.e. a lack of good will and respect. This is the kind of person who estimates the value of a person merely by measure of their ideology: once he disagrees with them, they’re not mistaken — they’re worthless. This is lazy and, it so happens, impervious. I’m guessing it’s also very lonely.
Oh, let me guess: 9/11/2001 changed all that, right?
Livewire, and your stream of insults makes a great case otherwise? I think that says far more about you than about Levi.
Not by itself; as one among several things, yes.
Also Iggy, what person are you attacking, at #23? Livewire? Me? Levi? It’s unclear.
If you meant to attack me, I’ll just say again (as I’ve told you before) that you really, and still, don’t know much about me. I’m sure you have picked up on the fact that I don’t exactly think much of you. And I’m sure, from the many ‘reactive’ type of comments you’ve given me over time, that that hurts your feelings. Oh, well. Tell yourself whatever you need to, about me.
(#26 continued) – But don’t expect me to necessarily go along with it, if you say it in public.
Generally, I prefer to ignore comments from leftists. Their minds are already made up so it is a waste of time and energy trying to reason with their ignorance and overcome their bias. Once in a while a comment will affect me like Popeye; ¨this all I can takes and I can´t takes anymore,¨so I will respond just to get it off my chest.
Not to drag heliotrope into this thread against his will, but his rebuke of Levi in this other thread is topical, and made me chuckle:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=10903#comment-411708
I’m not attacking anyone. I’m assessing based upon comments posted. This is an attack:
They’re psychically wounded morons – or worse. (There, I slapped ‘em.) – ILC, May 1, 2008
It’s unclear to you because you’re unable to differentiate between an honest assessment based upon evidence provided and an attack. Observing that a person who equates ideology with human worth and acts accordingly (unwilling to invest in anyone who disagrees with them and is then personally and intellectually lazy and impervious or closed-minded) and guessing that person is likely lonely is not an attack. Your interpretation as such indicates hurt feelings, but that wasn’t my intention.
So, let me see Ignatius.
Quoting Levi for his double standards, or bob for his fascism, is attacking?
Strange. Oh wait, that’s Swift Boating!
Swift Boating (verb) to tell the truth about liberals.
Ah, so it’s OK when you do it. Gotcha. 😉
No, it’s unclear to me because you haven’t provided an honest assessment based on evidence provided. The “honest assessment” part is missing, I’m afraid. For example, your claim that I:
Is not an honest assessment. If it were, Iggy, then I should rate you rather highly, because our political ideologies are similar in some important ways. Hypothesis disproven.
As I said, Iggy: You really don’t understand me, and don’t know anything about me. If you ever had an honest assessment of me to provide, I would welcome it. My low opinion of you derives from, among other things, many past encounters in which your assessments haven’t been honest; the evidence you’ve provided (when you care to provide any) hasn’t actually supported them and/or is out-of-context; the very enterprise of your trying to change the subject toward my person is an illegitimate substitute for your losing a point on-topic; and so forth.
I wish I could say I’m sorry that your feelings are so hurt by my low opinion of you, Iggy, but I’m afraid I can’t.
Sorry, bad edit. “…is an illegitimate substitute for your acknowledging that you have, in fact, lost a point on-topic…”
P.S. and I have to run – This very thread is an example of my hypothesis. The subject, set by GPW, is *Levi* and his evident imperviousness to facts. You don’t like it, and you don’t like what I’ve had to say in particular, and you probably don’t like that the net consensus has been drifting against your view. So, you’ve tried to start a discussion of me (your view of my person) as an alternate subject. Tsk, tsk.
Proof he doesn’t understand.
Here’s one from you, Livewire:
ILC, yes, it’s wrong. just shows your mortal. OTOH, we had a successful movie about an idiot savant. If they made one about bob, it would be half as successful. — Livewire, March 4, 2009
The above contribution is an insult, an attack. All I needed was Google and a few keywords. Based upon my reading of various threads, there are many, many more.
Actually that’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.
id⋅i⋅ot   /ˈɪdiət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [id-ee-uht] Show IPA
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
Bob has stated several times he doesn’t understand how quoting his own endorcement of Fascism doesn’t show he’s a fascist. He qualifies.
addendum,
I don’t deny I toss the occasional invictive around. I do it far less often than people such as Levi, since insults and lies are all he has in his (unimpressive) arsenal.
Still trying to change the subject away from Levi. Pathetic.
Also, Iggy: There are more than a few examples of personal insults from you on a variety of people, so insult-quoting isn’t where you should be changing the subject to.
Livewire, stating that bob adheres to a fascist political ideology (if supported with quotes and analysis) might be a reasonable observation. Calling someone with whom you disagree an idiot is an attack. There is a difference between calling someone an idiot and calling someone’s statement idiotic.
Something that The Livewire has done on many occasions.
(i.e., reasonably supporting his claim about bob)
the more and more i read posts by livewire and ilc, the more i realize you have absolutely no idea what fascism is.
Oh we know bob, we know. We’re scared to death we’re seeing it.
oooh, ok want to have some fun with Iggy’s post. “From my understanding of conservatism.”
So if I’d just said “From my understanding of idiots, Bob blah blah blah” that would be fine and dandy. Cool
“For the record, I am not a idiot and this is partly why I’ll keep repeating “my understanding of idiotsâ€. The term idiot is a broad one. It’s only reasonable to approach such terms generally, acknowledging various interpretations, even if general trends can be observed such as an utterly foolish or senseless person. This I have done by any reasonable standard.”
My new disclaimer. 😀
oooh, ok want to have some fun with Iggy’s post. “From my understanding of conservati-s-m.”
So if I’d just said “From my understanding of idiots, Bob blah blah blah” that would be fine and dandy. Cool
“For the record, I am not a idiot and this is partly why I’ll keep repeating “my understanding of idiotsâ€. The term idiot is a broad one. It’s only reasonable to approach such terms generally, acknowledging various interpretations, even if general trends can be observed such as an utterly foolish or senseless person. This I have done by any reasonable standard.”
My new disclaimer. 😀
oops, double post.