Why Intelligent Conservatives are more tolerant of Liberals
(than they are of us)*
I have this thought every now and again when I “friend” someone on Facebook who doesn’t know about my politics. Given the circles in which I have traveled over the years, it seems the better part of the people I have met are to the left of the political center. Now, many of these people do know about my politics, given that I have been “out” politically even in some very liberal circles. But, some do not. And I wonder how they might react when I link a post I have written here.
On more than one occasion, when I have come out politically to friends (& acquaintances) in Hollywood, they were surprised that someone so “thoughtful,” “creative” and/or ‘sensitive” (their adjectives not mine) could be Republican.
So, it struck me (and not for the first time) that while we intellectual conservatives with an artistic bent (as well as artistic conservatives with an intellectual bent) have regularly traveled in circles where we are a minority, many of our liberal counterparts have rarely encountered conservatives.
I wonder if that is why so many (but fortunately not all) on the left so readily dismiss conservative ideas without even considering them and why some otherwise very smart liberals do not seem capable of engaging their “ideological adversaries” on an intellectual level, preferring ad hominem attacks to argument. We, in contrast, are used to defending our ideas and often encounter liberals who accord them (and us) much respect. So, we know there are thoughtful liberals out there and thus do not define them as a monolithic narrow-minded bloc.
Some of their ideological confrères (and -soeurs) out there, however, don’t seem to meet many intellectual (or intelligent) conservatives. So they just assume . . .
*Please note this is one of those random thoughts I had promised yesterday. Perhaps, I should add the words “One Reason” to the beginning of the title as I don’t think this is a complete explanaation of the phenomenon.
62 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“intellectual conservative” is quickly becoming an oxymoron.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 15, 2009 @ 6:47 am - July 15, 2009
What I am struck by, Dan, is that many of the liberals I encounter in real life seem smarter and far less obnoxious than the ones who comment here. Real-life liberals are a lot more willing to admit that the Democrat party has flaws, and that conservatives are right on a lot of issues.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 7:39 am - July 15, 2009
#1: And I suppose, bob, that proving Dan’s point in ten words or less makes you a towering intellectual?
Comment by Sean A — July 15, 2009 @ 7:44 am - July 15, 2009
V the K,
I don’t know if it’s that they’re less obnoxious, or that not being a faceless set of pixels makes them more polite. I know I try (fail often, but try) to be more as polite online as I am IRL, but also know a lot of people don’t.
Plus, you can’t just not talk to someone IRL. Keep in mind, posters like bob, NJBigot, et al. run away to another thread when you crush them. It’s harder to change the subject when you’re sitting across the table from someone.
Comment by The Livewire — July 15, 2009 @ 8:41 am - July 15, 2009
I will never forget a co-worker’s comment that I must be a Democrat because I was so thoughtful and reasoned about listening to others’ views. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I told her I was probably one of the most right-wing Republicans she’d ever meet. She was astonished and kept talking to me–and voted for McCain in the last election because we could have a reasonable exchange of ideas. The stereotype of Republicans had blinded her to who I actually was–one of the things I pointed out to her and we discussed.
Louise B
Comment by Louise B — July 15, 2009 @ 9:09 am - July 15, 2009
Or maybe libs IRL only seem less stupid because you don’t notice the poor spelling and lack of punctuation.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 9:13 am - July 15, 2009
Coming out 2X… which was more difficult?
Two thoughts:
1) We must differentiate between leftists and liberals. In my experience, many who call themselves conservative these days (including myself) are JFK-type liberals more than they are true/hard followers of Edmund Burke. Like Reagan, we are refugees. And many who call themselves ‘liberals’ really aren’t. They may vote Dem but if you matched up their gut beliefs with the Dem platform, they’d be shocked at how little of a match there really is.
2) True leftists are living in delusion (in multiple dimensions – historical, social, religious, economic) and thus are subject to all kinds of psychological maladies, not the least being projection (and unawareness of same), which drives a need to lash out. Almost by definition, thoughtful folks (‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’) are not this way.
Great post Dan. CU in the PV w/ the bear in Oct?
Comment by ultraguy — July 15, 2009 @ 9:29 am - July 15, 2009
Louise B, good for you! My problem is, I get tired of explaining issues to people who don’t care. I find that a lot of California liberals and other Big Government types enjoy living in their little bubble of fantasy about how they’re enlightened, benevolent government will take care of them and be their Daddy, yadda yadda – as why shouldn’t they? – and simply don’t care to hear anything different, not even when their philosophy produces bad results for them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 10:16 am - July 15, 2009
When I have come out as a righty…because being gay and being a liberal democrat are genetically identical, as we know..the most common response is surprise because “you are so intelligent.”
Liberals really do think that they are both smart and well-intentioned, while conservatives are stupid and mean.
Which is so, like, stereotypical and bigoted.
Zzzzzz.
Comment by EssEm — July 15, 2009 @ 11:20 am - July 15, 2009
I think one of the problems is that Liberals tend to be somewhat more closed minded than Conservatives and hence tend to be intolerant of other views that do not match their own. I will never forget a friend in Atlanta, a liberal, who was just certain that “Yankees” were far more bigoted than southerners. I asked if she had ever lived or visited the North and was not really surprised to learn she had never been out of Atlanta!
Comment by Not Always Right — July 15, 2009 @ 11:27 am - July 15, 2009
Yes, this blog is OH so tolerant of / respectful for liberals ideas, democrats, etc. Honestly, if you read this blog (or heck, even just browse the posting headlines), the amount of vitriol and scorn directed at everything and anything Obama / Congress attempts / advocates is pretty remarkable. You can attack and scorn liberals all you want — that is your right. Sometimes, you will even be right (I could easily list 20 things I disagree with Obama / Congress on). But just like those other “open minded” conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News, Hannity, and on and on, all of whom display a level of closed-mindedness, insane unwarranted anger, and flat out nastiness that is unrivaled in any remotely mainstream left-wing medium, don’t pretend that you are somehow MORE open-minded than the left wing. That is a complete and utter joke. If you were, for example, you’d have to admit that Sotomayor is FAR more of a mainstream, moderate jurist than Alito or Roberts …
What drives me nuts is your utter lack of self-reflection / honest self-assesment when you bitch and moan about how it is the LIBERALS who are closed-minded, the LIBERALS who refuse to ever give a conservative idea the benefit of the doubt. Ummm, pot, meet kettle. (Compare your blog, for example, to leading liberal blog TPM, which while unabashedly liberal, is far less consistently reflexive in its partisanship than this blog or the Red State blog). Again, either stop bitching that liberals aren’t open-minded enough and are too hateful towards conservatives, or BE more open-minded and less hateful towards liberals. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Jeff — July 15, 2009 @ 11:30 am - July 15, 2009
The fact that Jeff’s post will be left up and debated proves his contention of intolerance is not valid.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 11:33 am - July 15, 2009
What Jeffy is actually whining about is that the content of the blog does not reflect his own opinions, but rather than do the work of starting his own blog he is, like a typical leftist, demanding that someone else change the content of their blog to suit him. (Imperative-tense sentences that include, “Stop bitching…” and “BE” are, in fact, demands.)
The author’s of this blog do not share my opinion on many issues. But as a grown-up, I respect the fact that it’s their house, and I’m a guest. I can argue in the comments, and I can express my opinions elsewhere. To demand that they change the editorial content to suit me would be selfish and childish.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 11:45 am - July 15, 2009
Well, to let others words lead by example, this post and the replies do show respect for diversity of beliefs of the various posters. The only threats of intimidation came from a poster Andrea, who believes that harassment and threats are free speech.
Jeff’s beliefs don’t match the reality of the boards. Unless he means that we don’t respect ‘democrats’ by asking them to cite facts and figures.
Comment by The Livewire — July 15, 2009 @ 11:56 am - July 15, 2009
bob, once again, thanks for helping making my point.
Jeff, please read the post before commenting. No, I did not say liberals were close-minded. Let me repeat, read the post. In that post, this very post, the one to which you attach your comment, I specifically noted tolerant liberals I have encountered when I come out conservative. Here, let me quote it for you:
So, instead of attacking a blog which you seem to read most regularly, why not actually read the posts there before spewing your vitriol and scorn.
Oh, and BTW, have you ever acknowledged your error in my challenge post when you offered a statement of Bush (41) whenI was looking for statements from Bush (43)?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 15, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - July 15, 2009
You guys don’t get it. You are free to have your ideas in a forum. It doesn’t make you closed-minded. Just like liberals aren’t closed-minded because, gasp, they like to espouse liberal ideals. But, by constantly generalizing about and demeaning liberals (how many posts on this blog are titled “liberals this” and “libeals that”) often in totally untrue ways, you are perpetrating against the left the exact sins you falsely attribute to us.
and to employ your logic, I guess just by the very fact that I and other liberals read this blog, red state, and drudge, we are by definition open-minded, right? It is ridiculous, not to mention completely factually unsupported, to claim that conservatives are more open minded than liberals. To do so on a blog whose author and commentators constantly make demeaning generalizations about all liberals is just laughable and pathetic.
Comment by Jeff — July 15, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - July 15, 2009
Liberal/leftist thought is neither “fact” nor “reality” based; its pure Utopian emotionalism, akin to faith in an unprovable deity.
When confronted with this contradiction, liberals must go “mad”; such contradiction simply can’t be rationalized by someone who professes to be intelligent, intellectual and sooo discerning, thence the lapse into emotion and ad hominem attacks—just like RC priests during the Inquisition!
Easy example: the truism that reducing tax rates increases tax revenues, is completely lost on the L/L crew! Show them the facts ala JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Bush ’46 and they still deny it, since it cannot compute with their world view/beliefs.
Too funny, if it weren’t so sad!
Comment by Earl T — July 15, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - July 15, 2009
First, I will acknowledge my error, I didn’t come back for awhile after my last comment on the thread as other things (aka work) kept me busy (and by the way my job is one every single conservative would love me for, not that it matters). I still stand by the general gist of other comments on that thead and disagree that Obama is in any meaningful way more demeaning towards his GOP opponents than Bush was, and I still believe Obama has at least tried at outreach, only to have every attempt swatted back in his face. But back to the point of this thread, you once again try to parse language ignoring the actual substance and content of your thread. I equate “tolerance towards” and “open0mindedness” and I likewise equate your claim that we more readily dismiss your ideas, than you do ours, as the equivalent of a claim that we are less open-minded. Rather than get into a semantic argument, why not actually reflect on the substance of what I am trying to say?
There are plenty of good critiques to be made of Obama’s policies, especially in the context of gay policy — I am upset with the action on DAMO (or whatever the right acronym is) as well as Don’t ask don’t tell, for example. I just feel it undermines your substantive points when you make crass generalizations like this with no basis in reality, and which in fact are undermined by the very commentators here and on a multitude of other conservative media who are ANYTHING but tolerant of liberals — again, ever hear Limbaugh, or Coulter, or O’Reilly, or Hannity EVER be “tolerant” of liberal ideas? Please …
Comment by Jeff — July 15, 2009 @ 12:18 pm - July 15, 2009
GPW, clearly your post hit a nerve.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - July 15, 2009
One more point and then I need to be productive once again. In response in particular to post 17, I urge you to read this interesting reflection from TPM.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/im_often_asked_why_the.php#more
It really is true. The leading right wing blogs seem to be devoted primarily to demonization of the left and defense of the right at all costs, facts and truth be damned, while many of the leading left wing blogs (the best by far being TPM) operate more like traditional journalists than just endless bloviations on how much liberals suck. The Sanford story was the perfect example, but hardly the only one …
Comment by Jeff — July 15, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - July 15, 2009
It is ridiculous, not to mention completely factually unsupported, to claim that conservatives are more open minded than liberals.
Actually, it’s simple philosophy.
Conservativism, by definition, is the embrace that ideas that you may not have come up with, but that others are doing and have been doing, have value and can be retained. For example, if you continue to do something that your parents did, you are acknowledging the value of your parents’ ideas.
Liberalism, aka “progressivism”, on the other hand, is at its core the rejection of other peoples’ values in favor of what you think they should be.
In short, conservatives think those who came before them had something to add to the discussion, and liberals think everyone that came before them is an idiot whose ideas should be discarded.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - July 15, 2009
Jeff, appreciate your acknowledging your error, but when you say “Obama has at least tried at outreach,” you imply that W did not. W, in contrast to Obama, made real concessions to Democrats in his first year in office, dropping school vouchers from No Child Left Behind in order to win bipartisan support for the bill.
Can you show similar significant concessions that Obama made? He seems to think that meeting with Republicans counts as outreach. And while I appreciate the gesture, it would be nice to see an effort at understanding their ideas, instead of suggesting (as he has) that the GOP has not offered alternatives to his proposals.
And please note and let me repeat (or re-re-re-repeat) what I said in the post–that yes, indeed, there are tolerant liberals, but many intelligent liberals travel in circles where they never meet an intelligent conservative–or never meet one who is open about his politics.
Crass generalizations? Hardly. Re-re-re-re=repeating again–I made clear in the very post to which you attach your comment that there are tolerant liberals. I never denied there are intolerant conservatives. To suggest that my points have no basis in reality is to deny the reality of my experience — and that of many of my readers and conservative friends — that when we come out as conservative, we often find friends surprised to meet a thoughtful conservative.
So, pause for a moment, engage in self-reflection and wonder why that is. Maybe people like Hannity make others think conservatives are all talking point repeaters who can’t engage those who respond to their points in a manner they have not foreseen. (But, I do wonder if many of those who criticize Limbaugh have ever actually listened to his show or just snippets pulled out of context and posted on liberal blogs.)
Seems that while you read this conservative blog, you’re bound and determined to ignore the life experiences of the conservatives who post here.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 15, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - July 15, 2009
why not actually reflect on the substance of what I am trying to say?
Because the substance of your argument is not supported by our life experience. You seem to think we just make up sh-t about liberals being closed-minded and intolerant. We don’t. We went to college with you guys. We run into you guys at work and in social situations. We also see how your ilk behaves in the comments of blogs. These experiences, coupled with the actions of the left as far as seeking to suppress speech through the Fairness Doctrine, through “hate speech” codes, through shouting down conservative speakers at college campuses, to the Obama administration threatening to take away the tax-exempt status of groups that protest abortion and dropping charges against Black Panthers who engaged in blatant voter intimidation… all testify to a left that is personally and institutionally intolerant of other points of view.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - July 15, 2009
Jeff in #20, you know not of what you speak. Stopped reading the link when I saw it referred to e-mails on the Sanford matter before we learned where exactly the Governor traveled. Once we learned the truth, no conservative blog that I read defended him. Not one. They all criticized him, even as many (including yours truly) had previously had great respect for the Governor.
So what if conservatives were trying to defend a man whom we had once respected? The e-mails I read (at that link) show conservatives trying to get information so instead of “facts and truth be damned” as you put it, they were trying to find the facts and get at the truth.
To suggest that the leading right wing blogs are devoted primarily to a demonization of the left indicates either a reading of only the most extreme of conservative blogs or a selective reading of their content.
Given how in your comments above you acted as if I hadn’t said things which I had actually said in the post, I would go with the latter.
As to Talking Points Memo, I will agree that Josh Marshall very often makes some very sound points, I for one, have long since stopped reading the blog because of his regular misrepresentation of conservative ideas. So, you’re right, he does indeed operate like a traditional journalist.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 15, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - July 15, 2009
The leading right wing blogs seem to be devoted primarily to demonization of the left and defense of the right at all costs, facts and truth be damned, while many of the leading left wing blogs (the best by far being TPM) operate more like traditional journalists than just endless bloviations on how much liberals suck.
That’s right; no one can forget how the lefty blogs like DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan, and Talking Points Memo were absolutely factual and truthful in their breathless reporting (and continued reporting) that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy and that Trig Palin is not her child.
Or this fine example of unbiased reporting and journalism from TPM.
That demonstrates quite nicely the standards of Jeff and his fellow leftists; spreading outright lies and falsehoods about Republicans constitutes good journalism in their eyes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - July 15, 2009
Fixed it for ya, Jeff.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - July 15, 2009
I was going to point out the few liberals who tolerate conservatives do so by ignoring the politics totally but Bob and Jeff made my point for me.
Comment by Kevin — July 15, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - July 15, 2009
Seems our young President isn’t so perfect and infallable as some think.
As a “lifelong White Sox fan” he can’t get the name of the field where they play correct. Geez.
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-sox-fan-obama-botches-name-of-commiskey-field-during-all-star-game-interview/
Cominskey Field instead of COMISKEY PARK. Lordy, even as a Pirates fan, I know where the White Sox play. hehe
Dummies, dolts, dopes and morons.
And yeah, I guess that makes me intollerant.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - July 15, 2009
Many valid points. The reason I, a liberal, avoid conservatives is simple: life it too short.
Comment by Kary — July 15, 2009 @ 3:20 pm - July 15, 2009
The reason I, a liberal, avoid conservatives is simple: life it too short to have my narrow prejudices and socialist fantasies challenged by reality.
Finished it for you.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - July 15, 2009
I think many liberals (not all, but many liberals) are quite isolated from conservative opinion. They seem to believe the fact that the MSM reports on conservatives at all means that they understand conservative arguments. All too often, liberals seem to believe that to, say, oppose higher minimum wage laws means one doesn’t care about the poor. If one believes there is too much illegal immigration or that affirmative action is wrong, one is racist. If one opposes a certain mass tranist project or cap-and-trade or Kyoto, one doesn’t care about the environment. If one believes abortion should be restricted, one is anti-woman. If one believes military action is required or that waterboarding should be performed on a captured terrorist, one believes it is out of a vengeful, belligerant spirit. Again, by no means are all liberals like this, but all too often I find that many people, including members of my own family who aren’t even all that liberal, don’t even understand conservative arguments on these sorts of issues. These friends and family members are all well-meaning, intelligent people, but I find all too often they are ignorant of the foundations upon which I base my opinions. I think I understand pretty well liberal opinions on these issues. Even if one opposes minimum wage laws, affirmative action, environmental regulations, or a particular military action, one can still see clearly the reasons why someone would take liberal positions on these issues. Concern for the poor, concern for justice for minorities, concern for the Earth, and a desire for peace are all values that everyone should have. The problem is though that too often, I find many liberals and even many moderates do not take the time to understand my POV. I don’t mind if people don’t agree with me, but it would be nice if more people took the time to understand why I believe what I believe.
Comment by chad — July 15, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - July 15, 2009
But just like those other “open minded” conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News, Hannity, and on and on, all of whom display a level of closed-mindedness, insane unwarranted anger, and flat out nastiness that is unrivaled in any remotely mainstream left-wing medium,
That’s if you don’t count Keith Olberfrau, Rachel Maddow, Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, that racist bigot Ed Schultz, that other bigot Al Sharpton etc. etc. etc.
Are you looking for a boo-hoo, Kevin? Can I get a boo-hoo from everybody to make Kevin feel better?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 15, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - July 15, 2009
There’s a difference between being confident in your positions and being closed-minded. A person who is confident is willing to engage in debate, as when a right-wing talk show host engages a liberal caller or liberal guests, as most all of them do. A person who is simply closed-minded shuts off debate… like left-wing blogs that immediately ban anyone who dissents.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - July 15, 2009
i don’t have the time to make all the points i would like to make on this post, but i’d like to just make one quick one. one of the defining characteristics of the political ideologies in this country is empathy. liberals, almost by definition, are empathetic. conservatives tend to not be empathetic. of course, i’m speaking in generalities. there are empathetic conservatives and liberals who are not. but most scholars of political ideology would concede that liberals tend to be the more empathetic bunch. we can argue about the virtues of this characteristic; surely some conservatives will argue about emotion getting in the way or reason, etc. but to argue that liberals are the close-minded ones seems so removed from reality. by definition, an empathetic person tries to see the point-of-view of others. the fact that quite a few liberals are frequent readers on this borderline radical conservative site should tell you something. the fact that conservatives get their news overwhelmingly from fox news, while liberals tend to pull their news from a whole host of places (newspapers, online, msnbc, cnn, fox news, etc.) should also tell you something. there are studies on this stuff, people.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 15, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - July 15, 2009
#34 – “i don’t have the time to make all the points i would like to make on this post”
That’s never stopped you before, boob. Or as we say down here in the South: “all hat and no cattle.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 15, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - July 15, 2009
Fixed it for you.
If liberals are more empathetic, why is it that conservatives are so VASTLY much more charitable with both their time and money?
Because like the rest of liberalism, your assertion is bullsh*t.
Comment by American Elephant — July 15, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - July 15, 2009
I lean pretty heavily libertarian so there are times I’m politically inline with each liberals & conservatives. My choices in who to “hang out” with online lean conservative because what you describe in your piece here is consistant w/ my observations.
I am, however, seeing an Obama Derangement Syndrome that I find as annoying as I found the Bush DS. When he makes a decision that GOP/conservatives would otherwise praise, there are those who respond with heckling joy at how badly it will bother a liberal group that otherwise supports him.
I was rolling my eyes at people writing yesterday about Obama’s throwing in the 1st ball at the AllStar game that he “throws like a girl.” I was thinking that no, he throws like a guy who doesn’t throw a baseball for a living.
Comment by dts — July 15, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - July 15, 2009
DTS, what decision exactly are you talking about? There was a lot of credit given when Obama decided to ensure “torture” photos would go unreleased. That’s the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that might fit what you speak of. Even though there may have been some “heckling joy” about it upsetting groups that otherwise support him, what on Earth does that have to do with the President himself?
Bob, I think you have made Chad’s point that a good many liberals out there completely fail to grasp conservative philosophies. Now, I completely agree with Plato’s contention that morality must descend from reason alone (rather than feeling); this does not, however, mean that I or any other conservative devalue empathy.
From my personal experience, I think that the liberal assumption that conservatives are overwhelmingly narrow-minded comes from the human tendency to assume that others are the same as we. A Psychology classmate and I had this misunderstanding last year. I had initially assumed him to be a fellow conservative because he was older, ex-military, & ex-law enforcement. He had assumed me to be liberal because…well, I don’t really know why. He said I look liberal. Each of us made the wrong assumption about the other because of what we’re used to.
As others have commented, I’ve been mistaken repeatedly for a liberal because of my intelligence and open-mindedness. But I don’t necessarily think this is because conservatives are so often demonized. Rather, I think it is more the thought process of “Well, you agree with me on so many things, so you must be the same!” Because I advocate for gay rights, because I am an Episcopalian, because I am a poor single mother, I must necessarily be a liberal. The mistake is to think that because of my circumstances I must have certain political leanings. It’s one I’m in danger of myself–I tend to assume that the soldiers, sailors, & airmen I meet are conservative because I’ve met very few who aren’t. I tend to assume my youngest classmates & peer-group parishioners are liberals, because most I’ve met are.
Comment by Sabra — July 15, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - July 15, 2009
#34: bob – empathetic? Huh?
It’s fine when individuals are empathetic. But it is not the governments job to be empathetic. The government’s job is to govern using only the authority granted it by the Constitution. Government is force.
It’s obvious that many in government act only in their own self interest (i.e. money and power). Most government efforts at “empathy” have resulted in unforgivable misery.
Was Barney Frank really acting in the best interests of the poor? Or in his own interest? When the government enabled (and in some cases compelled) unwise lending to poor people – are we any better off? Are the people who bought above their pay grade any better off having lived through default and foreclosure?
Were so many people in New Orleans, made helpless by endless government ministrations over the years, any better off when confronted by a disaster that required individuals to display a little initiative?
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 15, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - July 15, 2009
the fact that conservatives get their news overwhelmingly from fox news, while liberals tend to pull their news from a whole host of places (newspapers, online, msnbc, cnn, fox news, etc.) should also tell you something.
Yes. It shows that conservatives prefer news sources that present balanced views, while liberals limit themselves to ones that reinforce their prejudices.
liberals, almost by definition, are empathetic. conservatives tend to not be empathetic.
What’s really funny about that is that, despite their “empathy”, liberals seemingly have no trouble hanging Sarah Palin in effigy, calling her daughters whores, saying she should have aborted her disabled child, and claiming that she faked her pregnancy.
Given that example, we can say that liberals feel the pain of others — and then take complete joy in inflicting more and more of it.
I think boob has confused being empathetic with being sociopathic.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - July 15, 2009
Personally, I simply have a hard time understanding what ‘conservative’ means. (I have just as hard of a time with ‘liberal’.) That’s why I’ve been reading this blog as well as many other sources. It’s good to expand your horizons, right?
I’m hypothesizing that many gay men reject conservatism largely due to the degree that the ‘Religious Right’ infiltrated the Republican party, and made such an attack against homosexuality in order to bring out that voting bloc.
That has certainly been a factor which colors my view of both conservatives and Republicans. The very vocal opposition to any sorts of rights for gays has also been a factor. I know not every conservative is against gay rights, but those in favor seem to be a minority.
Even HERE, many gay conservative commenters are against gay rights. Since most of the commenters seem otherwise intelligent, I’m left absolutely flabbergasted and unable to understand the point of view.
Comment by DRH — July 15, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - July 15, 2009
SCR, I agree… except I’d go farther. A truly empathetic government is that which governs as little as possible. Supporters of small government are vastly more empathetic than supporters of Big Government, because the empathy of the former is real. Supporters of Big Government only pretend to be empathetic, while they go about knifing the little guy destroying everything in sight. Supporters of Big Government possess no empathy – so, knowing what a reprehensible deficiency that is, they lie and shriek about “empathy” all the louder. Think Macbeth (the lady doth protest too much).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - July 15, 2009
back.
regarding fox news, NDT writes:
Yes. It shows that conservatives prefer news sources that present balanced views, while liberals limit themselves to ones that reinforce their prejudices.
ok.
no seriously…ok. i’m not sure where to start with this.
ok…fox news is a “news” outlet that was explicitly created to serve a right-wing agenda. this isn’t my opinion. this is fact. look it up. do other sources of media have bias? yes, of course. but to argue that fox news is credible, or even legitimate, for that matter, removes any credibility you may have had (which was very little).
also…about the liberals wanting to reinforce their prejudices…your reasoning here is completely illogical. the whole point of my statement was that conservatives tend to limit themselves to strictly fox news, while liberals tend to view a whole variety of sources (including conservative ones). even if we accept your premise (which i don’t) that fox news is balanced and all the others aren’t, if we agree that liberals watch/read them all and conservatives watch only fox, which group is being more close-minded?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 15, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - July 15, 2009
Even HERE, many gay conservative commenters are against gay rights. Since most of the commenters seem otherwise intelligent, I’m left absolutely flabbergasted and unable to understand the point of view.
That would be because gay liberals like yourself define “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” solely on the basis of party affiliation, with little linkage to actual actions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 11:30 pm - July 15, 2009
do other sources of media have bias? yes, of course. but to argue that fox news is credible, or even legitimate,
So the theory here is that it’s perfectly OK for media to have a liberal bias and be credible and legitimate, but not any other type of bias.
Once again, the intolerant liberal boob demonstrates that his definition of “credibility” and “legitimacy” is if a media source reinforces his leftist beliefs. He says that any news source that does not is “not credible” and “not legitimate”.
the fact that quite a few liberals are frequent readers on this borderline radical conservative site should tell you something.
Given their behavior, including yours, it’s that liberals come here to attack, belittle, and mock those who disagree with them based on liberals’ bigoted stereotypes.
It’s again very funny to watch those who talk about their “empathy” make vicious claims, for example, that a woman who they don’t even know does not love her gay son.
If you don’t support full marriage equality for your son, then you don’t love him as much as you would if he were straight.
A classic example of liberal behavior.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - July 15, 2009
#43: “ok…fox news is a “news” outlet that was explicitly created to serve a right-wing agenda. this isn’t my opinion. this is fact. look it up. do other sources of media have bias? yes, of course. but to argue that fox news is credible, or even legitimate, for that matter, removes any credibility you may have had (which was very little).”
So, Foxnews is neither credible nor legitimate? bob, the only thing here that is consistently credibility-free is you. Just by using the terms that you do when discussing Foxnews verifies for the rest of us what we already knew–you’ve never laid eyes on Foxnews. Because if you had, you would realize that the channel is nothing like the right-wing Republican version of Al-Jazeera that you and your ilk have decided to believe that it is because you were instructed to do so.
bob, the reason you’re such an obvious liar is because the fact is that anytime, day or night, 24/7, if you turn on Foxnews you will see the same thing: LIBERALS DEBATING CONSERVATIVES on the issues and news items of the day. That’s the format, bob. So, when you dismiss Foxnews as categorically illegitimate, you’re only revealing that you’ve never seen it. It’s either that, or you find it illegitimate because the conservative side is represented at all. Ahhhh, that’s probably what you really object to. You prefer MSNBC where the format is liberals debating other liberals on the crucial issue of whether Obama is merely fantastic or super-fantastic.
Please, bob, I beg you. Just watch Foxnews for the first time this evening. Not because I think you’ll become a fan–I just want you to experience that collapsing feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize what an ignorant dope you really are. It would be great for you to turn on Fox and see, for example, Tammy Bruce debating cap & trade with one of the liberal scumbags that you like to read over at HuffPo. Or, Bob Beckel screaming at Ann Coulter about Obamacare. And you’ll realize that all of those talking points you’ve been dutifully and confidently belching (“Fauxnews!”) have really done nothing but confirm that it is YOU that is consumed with terror over the idea of liberals and conservatives BOTH getting to have their say in the media. At a minimum, it will prompt you to adopt a more ambiguous and cautious approach for condemning Fox, rather than going all in and labeling it as something that even the most ardent liberals know that it isn’t. bob, maybe even you could overcome your well-deserved reputation for being a BORING, partisan liar if you could answer the following question: if Foxnews is so biased in favor of the right wing, why do so many fu*king liberals work there?
Comment by Sean A — July 16, 2009 @ 12:30 am - July 16, 2009
dear seanA,
i watch fox news on a near-daily basis.
that is all.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 16, 2009 @ 6:55 am - July 16, 2009
I was rolling my eyes at people writing yesterday about Obama’s throwing in the 1st ball at the AllStar game that he “throws like a girl.”
Worse, President Ass-Man throws like a girl while wearing “Mom Jeans”
P.S. You really need to lighten up.
Comment by V the K — July 16, 2009 @ 7:28 am - July 16, 2009
what on Earth does that have to do with the President himself – nothing, but neither does the post. After generally agreeing with the premise, I noted exceptions. Conservative more tolerant/less mean, but there are exceptions and I can point them out regardless of my being politically in line with the actor.
Yup – projection & embracing stereotypes. Most are not aware when they’re doing it. Doesn’t take long for it to get old
V the K – Lighten up? teasing about it is swell but there were those who seemed to think that it showed some real shortcoming. Pretty goofy, hence “eyerolling”. i think those who look for minutia need to lighten up
Comment by dts — July 16, 2009 @ 10:02 am - July 16, 2009
Well, bob, if that’s true then you’re well aware of the format: every issue is debated by a guest from the left and one from the right. In fact, Hannity has been trying out something even more innovative: one from the left; one from the right; and someone “neutral,” usually a celebrity from the entertainment world. For example, one evening he discussed an issue with his three guests, Ann Coulter, some old lefty Democratic strategist, and a Broadway star (don’t remember her name, but she played Vivian in Legally Blonde on Broadway). That doesn’t have to be your cup of tea, bob, but to call it categorically illegitimate, or devoid of credibility, is just ludicrous. Again, the suspicion that it really raises is that you can’t stand the fact that guests from the right are permitted to appear on camera and comment at all.
Still waiting for an answer to the question, bob. If Foxnews is a right wing propaganda machine, why do so many liberals work there?
Comment by Sean A — July 16, 2009 @ 10:03 am - July 16, 2009
There were those who seemed to think that it showed some real shortcoming.
Examples, please. Links, citations, and other pesky evidence appreciated. I’ve not seen anyone comment on the president throwing like a girl meaning anything besides the president throws like a little girl.
Comment by V the K — July 16, 2009 @ 10:24 am - July 16, 2009
Left-liberals’ attitude toward Fox News shows the same dynamic I mentioned earlier with regard to their professions of empathy. Hard left-liberals really lack empathy; therefore they scream about empathy over-much, trying to keep the truth from being noticed. Left-liberal media really lack balance; therefore they scream about it too much, trying to keep the truth from being noticed. Sarah Palin really is a good and down-to-earth citizen politician, in contrast to all the elitist and morally empty professional hacks that left-liberals are stuck with; therefore they scream about her over-much, trying to keep the truth from being noticed. And so on. It’s all smoke.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2009 @ 11:54 am - July 16, 2009
sean,
hannity’s show usually has some moderate liberal and then some outspoken, overbearing conservative along with sean, the epitome of overbearing conservative. when the host and the produceres of the show lean to the extreme right, having some token liberal on there doesn’t even things out. but that’s fine. i have no problem w/ a cable show that has a bias. just stop pretending that it’s ‘fair and balanced.’ that’s the biggest crock there is. even the so-called straight news on that channel are very biased. even msnbc, whose editorialized shows are clearly to the left, has hosts like joe scarborough, tucker carlson (since left the network) hosting a show, and has frequent guests like pat buchanan. who does fox have? alan colmes? he’s barely a liberal and is so soft spoken that he can never get a word in (or never could, back when he was on h&c).
of the three main cable networks, cnn is the least biased (and the most boring). msnbc is next. fox is the worst and borders on tabloid.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 16, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - July 16, 2009
Guess what Boob?
I already have looked it up! And even more important, the University of Los Angeles’ Political Science Department has done a study of all the major television news outlets and found that FOX News Special Report is the most fair and balanced newscast of them all.
And Boob earns his name yet again.
Comment by American Elephant — July 16, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - July 16, 2009
North Dallas Thirty,
You said: “That would be because gay liberals like yourself define “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” solely on the basis of party affiliation, with little linkage to actual actions.”
Sorry, I define pro-gay and anti-gay based on how it affects gay people. Nothing to do with party affiliation. But nice of you to just make assumptions.
I even said I came here to learn, but you’d rather just be vitriolic.
Comment by DRH — July 17, 2009 @ 12:08 am - July 17, 2009
No, DRH; people who come here to learn tend not to start out by making insulting statements about how people “otherwise seem intelligent”. That’s little more than repeating the mistake Barbara Boxer made today in revealing the belief that, because someone is a member of a minority, they should think a certain way.
Furthermore, what I pointed out is that “attacks against homosexuality” are relative, inasmuch as gays like yourself lose no enthusiasm for the Obama Party, and indeed continue to endorse and support them, when they support marriage bans and comparing gays to incest practitioners.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 17, 2009 @ 1:15 am - July 17, 2009
Here are my thoughts…
I wonder if liberals think Fox News is so far right not because they are, but because the MSM is so far left.
I always identified as liberal (until about a year ago when I started reading Tammy Bruce). The one thing I have to say is that when I read conservative authors, while I may not agree with everything they say, I never have to run to the dictionary to understand their writing. Have you ever tried to read Noam Chomsky? I can’t get through the introduction.
Personally, I’m finding it hard to reconcile the fact of being a lesbian and a (gasp!) possible conservative.
I have my own stereotypes of conservatives that maybe you can help me out with…
I always thought conservatives didn’t care about people. They didn’t care if people had health care or they couldn’t afford it. I thought conservatives were racists and homophobes.
But I am wrong.
Let me ask you. What is the answer to the healthcare problem? I don’t want the government to tell me who I can see (that happened when I was on medicaid and I could only see one doctor an hour away), yet I don’t think people should have to lose their homes and savings because they can’t afford their medicines. Is there a solution?
Boy, I am finding it hard to actually be an individual, who happens to be gay, and think about this things intellectually, as opposed to just letting a group decide for me what I should think…
Valerie
Comment by Valerie — July 17, 2009 @ 9:08 am - July 17, 2009
There are several possible solutions, but I favor some combination of the following.
1. End all health insurance mandates so that consumers can tailor policies to their needs.
2. Cap and socialize Medical Malpractice damages; lowering the cost of malpractice insurance and discouraging the proliferation of unnecessary tests and treatments.
3. Set-up government clinics to deal with the poor. Doctors can have their medical school debt repaid by the government in return for 5-8 years of service. The poor or their families can work at the clinics to repay the cost of treatment. Socialized malpractice damages would also go to support such clinics.
4. Encourage retail medical establishments for routine care. (Like a cross between a doctor’s office and Lenscrafters.)
5. Establish a government fund for catastrophic needs such as cancer, organ transplants, AIDS treatment, and other high-cost procedures; paid for with new optional taxes (i.e. you have to pay into the fund for it to take advantage of it).
By this system, we would have both a robust private option, and an emergency, last resort government option.
Comment by V the K — July 17, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - July 17, 2009
#47 – “i watch fox news on a near-daily basis. that is all.”
And once again boob opens his mouth, and removes all doubt.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 17, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - July 17, 2009
North Dallas Thirty,
My apologies for the “otherwise intelligent” comment.
But you’re making crazy assumptions again. “Gays like me.” You’re full of it.
I was never enthusiastic about Obama. In the first few days where he gave the appearance of actually trying to get things done I was mildly hopeful. Now I’m positively un-enthusiastic. We’re back to business as usual, and it’s depressing. That’s why I’m trying to find out more.
Comment by DRH — July 17, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - July 17, 2009
I haven’t seen any person on this website be hostile to the critical gay issues, whether they’re allowed to exist, equal employment in jobs, whether they should be injected with lots of sex hormones to ‘fix’ them.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
And while there’s more opposition of gay marriage among republicans, there’s majority bipartison support for inheritance rights, protection against hate crimes, gay people in the military. Which made it notably iffy when Obama didn’t end DOMA. Since he would gain votes from pro-repeal republicans who otherwise hate everything he’s doing, and expend no political capital.
Republicans tend to be pro family, and quite a large number of gay people are utterly unsupportive of traditional families, which serves to amplify fears that it will damage traditional marriage with the biological differences. It’s understandable that there would be opposition to that. Whether gay marriage exists or not, it has minimal effect on gay people, especially when civil unions exist.
Comment by TD — July 18, 2009 @ 11:31 pm - July 18, 2009
Conservatives care more! Liberals are extremely generous with other people’s money and claim that means they are generous. Not only does study after study show that conservatives are much more charitable with both their time and money, but unlike liberals, conservatives care enough to find out which policies actually WORK — not just which policies sound good.
Understanding what is wrong with the health care system is the first step. Government, more than anything else, is responsible for the skyrocketing health care costs. Government tells providers what price they are going to pay for services, and providers make up for the lost revenue by shifting the cost to the rest of us.
The problem is, providers are shifting the cost of lost revenue to the rest of us for medicare, medicaid, VA hospitals, SCHIPS, not to mention all the state programs. 20+ illegal immigrants are clogging our emergency rooms where they cannot be denied service, and where you and I are picking up the bill. (We are also paying a good portion of the bill for socialized medicine in Canada and Europe, but thats more complicated to explain than I want to get into). SCHIPS alone provides “free” health care to the children of families making up to 300 percent above the poverty line.
Everytime “caring” Democrats demand that we give “free” care to more people, it drives the cost of healthcare for everyone else up as providers shift the cost to regular people.
The second biggest reason costs have skyrocketed is lawsuits by Democrats biggest campaign donors, the trial lawyers. (You’ll find the Democrat bill does absolutely nothing to curb the cost of lawsuits)
As a result, everyone providing health care must carry malpractice insurance — the doctors, the specialists, the hospitals, everyone who can be sued must carry malpractice insurance — for which the costs are also skyrocketing as more and more trial lawyers sue more and more often for more and more money. Those costs are passed on to us.
There are HUGE costs to consumers because of doctors practicing “defensive medicine”. They suspect all they need to diagnose your problem is an x-ray, but they order an MRI or CT scan instead just to be safe that they dont miss something and get sued. One blood test would do, but to be safe, they order a whole slough. Your insurance pays because you use it like a credit card, and your premiums go up as a result.
Regulation causes enormous cost increases. Scores of new staff have been hired in doctors offices and hospitals across the country just to comply with all the regulation. Many doctors with sturdy practices are simply refusing to see patients with medicare because the little they get in return isnt worth their time and effort and the time they and their staff must take to comply with the programs regulations.
Almost any state where Democrats have held power also mandates certain types of coverage. Some states REQUIRE your insurance to cover mental health. Other REQUIRE you them to cover the pill. Others REQUIRE them to cover acupuncture…. and on and on. Many times they are requiring your insurance to cover things you would never purchase coverage for yourself. Get rid of all of the coverage you dont need, and you could save a bundle. But government wont let you.
And finally, patients are to blame. They want health insurance that performs like a credit card, where insurance covers EVERYTHING from doctors visits to the pill. Instead of paying out of pocket for the normal stuff and just carrying insurance for catastrophic events they cant pay for.
If you wanted to save a great deal of money TODAY, jack up your deductable to the most you can afford, put that much aside in a health savings account, and pay only for catastrophic insurance that covers only catastrophic injury and disease.
Aside from the immediate and drastic savings you would note in your monthly insurance costs, you would find all sorts of ways to save money that you hadnt thought of before, because you weren’t thinking about costs.
When the Dr orders an MRI, you could ask him if an X-ray wouldnt suffice. When your doctor prescribes the latest medicine with the slick ad campaign just because its what everyone else has been asking him for, you could ask if a generic would suffice.
So whats the answer?
First and foremost, dont allow Democrats anywhere NEAR your health care! They will only make it more expensive, less effective, and more scarce. Its what they do.
Keith Hennesey has a good prescription:
Comment by American Elephant — July 19, 2009 @ 6:04 am - July 19, 2009