Gay Patriot Header Image

Social Liberalism: Going Too Far

A few weeks ago, a reader at Instapundit found an interesting passage in the archives which Glenn Reynolds had first quoted in February 2002.  I made note of the passage because it seemed to fit so well with both the social liberalism theme and also with the distinction (increasingly hard to recognize in the age of Obama, I admit) between liberals and leftists to which I made reference in my last post.

The passage is from an article by Judith Lewis entitled “Why I’m Not a Protestor” that appeared in the LA Weekly on Jan. 30, 2002:

And whatever these perfect strangers from Kentucky stood for, however distant they were from the causes of global minimum wage, clean energy and sustainable peace, they were still able to treat people who shared almost none of their values without contempt. We were able to do the same, and to us, that was a hugely political act.

But it is the kind of political act for which the current crop of activist groups — from the Voters Rights March to Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center — have increasingly little patience. Faced with dissenting views or even devil’s advocacy from newspaper reporters, they grow hostile and deny access. When I’ve collaborated with activists on the left, as I did recently on a Web site, I’ve found them willing to censor discussions or use ridicule when certain words make them uncomfortable. When I’ve written about them, they’ve been unhappy that I’ve focused on their personal struggles and not exclusively on the issues, and as a member of the media, I’ve endured their suspicion and scorn. Were these people ever to actually run the country, I complained loudly in the summer of 2000, while I was up in Malibu covering the Ruckus Society’s direct-action training camp, it would be a bona fide fascist dictatorship.

Although the LA Weekly article ends by reiterating the writer’s allegiance to leftist goals and ideals, she intends it as a warning to her fellow liberals and leftists that they need to learn to work and play well with others.  Despite her moment of clarity, she is unable to recognize that the leftist activist class is extreme and intolerant because leftist philosophies inevitably end up there.

The passage came to mind again when I saw this recent interview with Juan Williams at the Daily Caller.  In the interview, Williams talks about what he learned from his firing by NPR:  the liberal media will “shut you down, stab you, kill you, fire you” if you disagree, he tells Ginni Thomas.

Both examples remind me of the many political change stories that Neoneocon has collected and written about over the years.  Although neither Judith Lewis (in the LA Weekly article) nor Juan Williams have abandoned their belief in leftist ideas, both have experienced a key element of leftism that has inspired many others to look more closely at conservative ideas and conservative thinkers.

In other words, the ingrained tendency of the left to go too far often unsettles the willingness of individuals to continue to believe in the narrative of a beneficent and well-intentioned politics–a belief which, however unfounded, is one of the hallmarks of social liberalism.   At least that has been my experience.

What have our readers observed?  Were any of you political changers?  Was there something about the anger, intolerance, and extremism of the leftist activist class that inspired you to question your views or, alternately, that made you more resolute in your conservative beliefs?



  1. Was there something about the anger, intolerance, and extremism of the leftist activist class that inspired you to question your views or, alternately, that made you more resolute in your conservative beliefs?

    Absolutely. Although I have been a conservative ever since I started paying attention to politics, the vileness of the left has made me hate it with an intense passion. That isn’t to say I necessary hate all leftists; many of them are probably good, but misguided and often stupid, people. I just hate many of them, as well as the ideology. Furthermore, it has altered my beliefs in the way that, given the slippery slope that is initiated by giving them any ground (which it is because of the left operates), I am always reluctant to compromise in the name of “pragmatism.” In other words, the left’s underhandedness has caused me to become somewhat of an uncompromising ideologue, in general.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 25, 2013 @ 12:49 am - February 25, 2013

  2. To respond to the quoted author about “ridicule”…

    Well, yes. We ridicule. If right-wing people actually understood humor or had a grasp on facts that could produce ridicule that would affect a left-wing writer, they would. They try. It is very sad. Nothing a right-wing commentator has ever said, in jest, has ever gotten the goat, so to speak, of a liberal writer. But we best y’all all the time. Goodness, just look at the coverage of poor Ben Shapiro believing everything he sees on teevee.

    So yeah. We ridicule, for fun and for America. Not gonna stop either. Maybe if the Right Wing tried to encourage education among their adherents something might change. As it is, the average comments section of a right wing blog is a bunch of illiterate morons typing in all caps and your average liberal comments section is mostly lawyers and college professors.

    Please, let us all know when the Right finds a group of actual smart people to love them….

    Comment by evan — February 25, 2013 @ 12:57 am - February 25, 2013

  3. evan my dear, what you see as ridicule, the rest of the thinking world sees as mean-spirited, vile, vicious and nasty. The left loves to proclaim their supposed brilliance but those of us not on the proggie plantation are just a little tired of being told we’re morons by a group of idiots.

    Comment by Dale — February 25, 2013 @ 1:24 am - February 25, 2013

  4. This has evolved over time. When I first became politically aware, I saw little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I was a Jimmy Carter supporter in the 1976 election. I did actually admire much about Nixon, his opening up of communications with Russia and China, for example. I also felt that Watergate was trumped up over something of little consequence. It was a breaking in to get political dirt on an opponent that turned out to be not even needed in the subsequent election.

    What began to change my mind was Carter’s pusillanimous foreign policy. I was disappointed that he chose a policy of “run away” in Iran rather than a policy of “constructive engagement”. We could have convinced the Shah that he needed to convert to a constitutional monarchy rather than simply running away and leaving a power vacuum for the ayatollah to fill. He then repeated that policy in Nicaragua. Before long we had Russian military units operating in Central America. By this time I was in the Army and the failure and fallout from the failure of the hostage rescue attempt swayed me away from Carter and towards Reagan.

    Once I left the military I used the GI bill to study economics. The more I learned about economics, particularly the more I read Milton Friedman, the farther I drifted from the Democrats. I also came to realize that the Democrats were playing a very cruel and cynical game with minorities. While on one hand they pretended to advocate for black Americans, for example, the impact of the policies were actually to keep that particular segment of the American population in dependence to them. Their programs destroyed the work ethic, destroyed families, created a culture of dependence and actually did the exact opposite of their rhetoric.

    I also began to learn that the Democrats and the political left in general never really wants to solve problems. To the contrary, they thrive on “working on” the problem in perpetuity. They must never actually solve it but provide the people affected with a “lotion” that soothes the problem and makes it easier to live with without actually fixing it. If you have high unemployment, I will send you a check every month. That doesn’t solve your unemployment but it makes it easier to live with and at the same time makes you beholden to me to keep sending the checks. I must demagog anyone attempting to actually solve the problem by saying that person wants to cut off your benefits, when in reality they want to make the benefit unnecessary.

    Once I understood how cynical and evil the Democrats really were, once I began to understand how utterly corrupt and dishonest they were, there was no going back. I don’t mean the rank and file Democrats, most of those people have no idea what is really going on and follow along for any number of reasons. I mean the leadership. These are the people that control the most corrupt political machines in the nation. These are the people who control the most corrupt labor organizations in the nation. The Democratic Party of today is probably the most corrupt political organization we have seen since Tammany Hall.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 2:56 am - February 25, 2013

  5. Example of corruption: We have “sequestration” coming up. Obama gets to choose what gets cut. Have you heard a peep about any cutting of subsidies to his donors such as cutting of “green energy” subsidies? No. Obama chooses to “poison children” before he chooses to cut off the gravy train to his cronies but he blames the Republicans? It’s just insane and anyone with a brain should be able to see through what is going on. Obama shovels hundreds of billions to his political donors every year through various grants. The “renewable” energy research lab in Colorado is headed by a person making nearly a million a year, has several assistants making over $300 K / year. Taxpayers aren’t even allowed on the property to see what they are doing there. It’s insane, it’s wasteful, it’s stealing, and it is dishonest.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 3:18 am - February 25, 2013

  6. #2: “Comment by evan — February 25, 2013 @ 12:57 am – February 25, 2013”

    Comment by Little Kiwi — February 25, 2013 @ 12:57 am – February 25, 2013


    Comment by Sean A — February 25, 2013 @ 3:33 am - February 25, 2013

  7. To those condemned to repeat History as farce;

    February 27th; Order of the President for the Protection of People and State …”Articles of the Constitution are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

    March 23rd; Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation passed.
    Article 1 – In addition to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, laws of the Nation may also be enacted by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
    Article 2 – Laws enacted by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Legislative Houses. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
    Article 3 – Laws enacted by the Executive Branch of Federal Government shall be issued by the Executive Branch and announced in the Federal Register. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles protecting the States’ Rights in the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government
    Article 4 – Treaties of the Nation with foreign states, which relate to matters of Federal legislation shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the Legislative Branch. The National government shall adopt the necessary legislation to implement these agreements.

    ( Edited primarily for terminology.)

    Sound Familiar?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 25, 2013 @ 4:02 am - February 25, 2013

  8. I am a political changer. But it wasn’t experiencing their anger or intolerance that caused my shift. It was the sources of dissonance in their philosophy — e.g., (a) infringing on individuals’ economic freedom in the name of social justice (b) forcing others to do what they believe is right (c) wanting to “design” a society based on the views of a few intellectuals — that caused it. Since then, like you, I have begun to separate liberal from left.

    Like any other group, the left has many sub-segments. Examples — not exhaustive: (a) people who care about social issues (e.g., women, gay, minority issues) and see democrats as the only option for ensuring that these groups aren’t marginalized (b) people who want some safety net for the poor (c) people who genuinely have strong socialist/leftist leanings. I find that you can still engage (a) and (b) — but not (c).

    My hypothesis: If some of these people gained a real understanding of basic/ foundational economic principles and the uniqueness of American governance/constitution — like me, they would change their minds or at the very least begin to seriously question the leftist ideology.

    The issue is that (with all respect) conservatives/libertarians suck at engaging these groups. I grant us the handicap of having a very non-sexy message to convey — but still….

    Comment by Jane Austen — February 25, 2013 @ 10:06 am - February 25, 2013

  9. Is anyone else amused at the cowardice of Little Kiwi?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2013 @ 11:10 am - February 25, 2013

  10. “Social Justice” is a feel-good phrase that Hitler would have used to cleanse Germany of the Jews if he had thought of it. It is a Madison Avenue, Edward L. Bernays inspired concoction of directed propaganda. Bernays wrote in Propaganda (1928):

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

    The purpose of advertising is to keep the believers believing and to lure others into the fold. It is based on “manipulating minds” and reinforcing the “social patterns” which “validate” the assumptions of the manipulation.

    1928 was followed by a rotten economy and the WWII years, so the Bernays theories of advertising “propaganda” had a long gestation period. However, the government went full-bore into the propaganda business and involved Hollywood and celebrities wherever possible.

    The “Progressives” are reactionaries who worship their brand of “hope” and “change” for no other reason than it represents “progress” in their minds and “progress” is always better, as they use the word. Of course, Hitler was working for “progress” that would result in a Jew-free, gay-free, Gypsie-free, black-free Germany. Hitler did not corrupt “progress” so much as he propagandized the acceptable definition. He was a master at the game of political correctness.

    Now, along comes “evan” @ #2 and graciously spouts Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5:

    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

    “evan” is not dealing with the post in any way other than to ridicule the post by being ridiculous in the belief that he will be countered and therefore given the opening to more ridicule and ridiculousness.

    What do Jon Stewart, Bill Mahrer, Steven Colbert, David Letterman, et. al. have in common? They ridicule. They bully. They snark. They belittle. They play to their like-minded audience. They propagandize.

    “evan” can no more define “social justice” than he can define “humor.” That is the key to the game that Progressives play. They gather together like so many brown shirts and they threaten the existing “social order” through brow-beating, bullying and what their brand of ridicule which always debases the person they are attacking.

    Back to Bernays: Progressives want to control the “social justice” realm according to their whims and by the exercising of iron-fisted government power.

    The Communists let the useful idiots upset the social order and gain power and then the hard-core dictators move in and execute the useful idiots and take control. That is what “evan” has no capacity to understand. He is too busy tearing things down to see what is looming in his shadow.

    At some point in this game, Lyndon Johnson’s colorful insight comes true: “If you’ve got ’em by the balls, their heart and mind will follow.”

    These are not nice people.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2013 @ 11:27 am - February 25, 2013

  11. @ heliotrope

    You may be right. How about ways to counteract this? If one just frames the problem, analyzes their tactics, and leaves it at that, one is defenseless.

    All that you describe happens and then along comes someone like Milton Friedman who just will not have it — and continues to be the lone voice until such time comes when populace at large is ready to hear what he is saying.

    I am interested in your thoughts about how as a group (libertarians/conservatives) can engage thoughtful/open-minded segments of liberals — how can we get through to them?

    Comment by Jane Austen — February 25, 2013 @ 12:02 pm - February 25, 2013

  12. Funny that you should show up, “evan”.

    You see, that’s a popular name on the left. It’s often associated with Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out, a website endorsed by “progressives” such as Pam Spaulding, who demonstrate how Barack Obama and “progressives” act in their “factual” description of one of the primary bloggers of this site:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    A fine example of intelligent argument there.

    And as Sean A points out, “evan” is also linked with one of the other Obama supporters and fine example of liberals Little Kiwi, who espouses the same liberal beliefs as Michelangelo Signorile and GLAAD endorsee Joe Jervis that conservative gays should kill themselves.

    Not to mention progressive liberal Obama endorsee and Obama “bullying czar” Dan Savage, who simply wants all Republicans dead.

    When one realizes that Obama and the Obama Party want people dead for disagreeing with them politically, that brings matters into stark relief. In the world of “progressives” and liberals, those who do not agree with them must be killed.

    And that is what must be said to liberals at every opportunity. When they start whining and complaining, simply ask them point-blank why they believe people should be killed for their political affiliation. Ask them why their Barack Obama endorses and supports those who call for the murder of Republicans. Ask them why their Hollywood, their media empires, air shows starring people who have publicly proclaimed that half of the country should be murdered for their political affiliation. Ask them why they exhort gay and lesbian conservatives to kill themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2013 @ 12:07 pm - February 25, 2013

  13. Laughing at the Nazis only works when they’re being obviously-ridiculous; i.e. their North American comedy-club-rejects You-tube branch.

    Otherwise, loaded shotguns are preferable…

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 25, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - February 25, 2013

  14. Maybe if the Right Wing tried to encourage education among their adherents something might change. As it is, the average comments section of a right wing blog is a bunch of illiterate morons typing in all caps and your average liberal comments section is mostly lawyers and college professors.

    Please, let us all know when the Right finds a group of actual smart people to love them….

    Says the person whose party believed the Republicans were waging a “war on women” and that Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment was newsworthy. LOL.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 25, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - February 25, 2013

  15. I’ve always been a conservative, but before GW Bush was elected, I always believed that while both sides had their differerences, they still basically meant well for the country and its citizenry, even if they both took different paths.

    Sure, I was rather pissed off over the whitewashing Clinton got (even before he was elected), but I never once believed that Bill Clinton hated the country, or any of its people.

    I watched the long knives come out when GW was elected and re-elected, with a movie about his assassination, Chimpy McHitlerBurton jokes, a Comedy Central series lampooning him, gnashing of teeth over the Patriot Act, constant complaints about gas prices, and endless crawls on news shows of the tallies of the dead military from Iraq and Arghanistan.

    It was uglier than “we” were against Clinton, and that ugliness only intensified when Obama ran for the Presidency. Where I might have thought that the Democrat agenda was radically different than the Republican one, I saw that the Democrats HAD no agenda aside from Power once Obama won election (and they have doubled-down on their angry hypocrisy since his re-election). All the things that were bad under GW are fine and dandy for the lion’s share of Dems.

    Where is the assassination movie featuring Obama? Where is the Comedy Central series? Oh, right, any criticism, and I mean ANY criticism, of the Zero, is racist.

    I suspected that there was more than philosophical differences when GW was elected and the Dems attacked with a fervor never before seen. I was sure that the Dems cared for nothing but power when Obama was elected and re-elected, and the Dems did a complete one-eighty on what they allegedly believed in so that they (and the propoganda MSM) could shield Obama from anything and everything.

    I now know that whatever a Democrat says they stand for only applies when it can be used as a bludgeon on Conservatives. When a Leftist is in power, any opposition is to be put down however it can be.

    The Dems/Leftists don’t give a damn about this country, all they care about is Power. I might be disillusioned with the Republicans, but there is no way I could ever entertain the notion of siding with Democrats, not after seeing twelve-plus years of their nastiness, venom, and hypocrisy on display …

    Thanks for the post.

    Comment by Acethepug — February 25, 2013 @ 12:22 pm - February 25, 2013

  16. I now know that whatever a Democrat says they stand for only applies when it can be used as a bludgeon on Conservatives. When a Leftist is in power, any opposition is to be put down however it can be.

    The Dems/Leftists don’t give a damn about this country, all they care about is Power.

    Yep. When you look at what leftist ideology fundamentally is, it is exclusively about gaining and holding on to power. Nothing else. Even my geography professor said as much.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 25, 2013 @ 12:33 pm - February 25, 2013

  17. Jane Austen @ #8:

    The issue is that (with all respect) conservatives/libertarians suck at engaging these groups. I grant us the handicap of having a very non-sexy message to convey — but still….


    Back in the 60’s and 70’s you could still find liberals who would sit down and reason things out. A lot of Scotch was consumed in long “heart-to-hearts” between receptive liberals and receptive conservatives about poverty, health care, education, the environment, defense, rehabilitation, etc.

    At the local level, I am far more liberal than even I am willing to admit. I am involved in a lot of community health care, outreach programs for people in poverty, offender aid and restoration, food banks, free clinics and the likes. Mostly, however, everything is basically privately funded with cooperation from the local government. I am proud of how we have worked with our poor aliens and dissuaded illegal aliens from sticking around. We have minimized the impact of drugs and drug gangs and we just recently shut down a licensed gun dealer who was a lying snake and black market provider. (His showroom was essentially a catalog for what he could arrange for a buyer to obtain for cash on delivery using a go-between.)

    I travel a great deal and I am often surrounded by liberals for extended times. Eventually, many of them seem to want to “examine” my belief system. I enable this by noting when I “respectfully disagree” with some statement or assumption they have just made.

    What I continually encounter and reencounter is that liberals spray you with buck shot. They don’t stick to any particular topic and many of them are unable to express their “beliefs” in any structured way. You can not have an honest give and take if his view is all wrapped up in his emotions. Once he puts his emotions on the line, he makes it personal. It is like trying to argue with an addict about the core of his problems.

    I rarely encounter a liberal who does not wrap his emotions up in the whole exchange. My very liberal sister “hates” guns. Where do you go from there? Every inch of progress you may make is thrown a mile back when she reverts to “loathing and hating and not understanding all of this macho crap that compels puny people to buy every gun in sight.” End of discussion. Chill pill time.

    My assessment is that liberals are very unstable people. By unstable, I mean that they are totally repulsed by anything that appears to them to be an “absolute.” That keeps them from moving past something that irks them with an “it is what it is” sort of complacency. In fact, liberals, in my opinion, can’t handle complacency.

    Gertrude Stein once noted: “Whenever you get there, there is no there there.” But, having voiced that truism, old Gertrude kept searching until she became so opaque and domineering that you had to be invited into her world on her terms. She loved Franco, but in examining Roosevelt, Mussolini and Hitler she complained that there was “too much fathering going on.”

    Liberals are really dictators at heart. They are sure they know what is “there” and they keep pushing toward the Emerald City with a fervent, religious zeal.

    How do we communicate with that? Last night, Michelle Obama read the winner for the best picture award. There was no separation of church and state in all of that. She awarded the red hat of a cardinal in the high church of Hollywood celebrity liberalism. Babs, Hanoi Jane and Michelle: a trifecta; a holy trinity. That is what liberal “there” looks like when you get “there.” And it is all followed by an orgy of self-adulation and snarky assessments of “who you are wearing.”

    The emperor liberalism has no clothes.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2013 @ 12:35 pm - February 25, 2013

  18. Rattlesnake,

    Yep. When you look at what leftist ideology fundamentally is, it is exclusively about gaining and holding on to power. Nothing else. Even my geography professor said as much.

    So are libs Underpants gnomes?
    Step 1. Destroy opposition, retain power, by any means.
    Step 2. ????
    Step 3. Profit!

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2013 @ 12:45 pm - February 25, 2013

  19. Social Justice is a trick of linguistics. It is meant to send the underlying message that if you oppose them, you are in favor of suppressing certain segments of the population at the expense of others (which is exactly what THEY do).

    It is a way of turning what they are actually doing around and implying that it is the other side that is doing it while pretending to be the advocate of the very people they are destroying with their policies. What have Democrat programs done for the work ethic of poor families, some of whom are now on their third generation of welfare dependence? How does wholesale incarceration of minority males help those families? How does pouring increasing amounts of money into poorly performing schools, giving them a direct economic incentive to fail, help the people who use those schools and why do they always block school choice for parents?

    That, my friends, is social injustice and it is what they practice but their rhetoric would claim otherwise.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 12:46 pm - February 25, 2013

  20. So are libs Underpants gnomes?

    I have absolutely no idea what that means. But profit is evil!!!11!!!!!!111!!!!!! (Unless the government gains it by taking from people coercively.)

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 25, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - February 25, 2013

  21. It has done neither. I am resolute in my conservatism, no more no less. What it has done is rouse my ire, that I want to get down and dirty with them. It causes me to pause, and say cancel. It would only dirty me. they can get any dirtier than they already are. The left asa represented by the ADA has taken possession of Democrat Party. It is not the Democratic Party of my second cousin when he was the leader of Tammany Hall. The ADA tried to smear him to keep him from being elected the New York Committeeman for the DNC. It was considered extreme and it would be the kiss of death for a Democrat candidate to seek their endorsement. The newspapers of that time had no problem reporting that the ADA was founded by communist sympathizers and fellow travelers. God, how times have changed! Now Democratic candidates jump through their asses to be endorsed by the ADA. Obama´s ADA rating is 95%.

    Comment by Roberto — February 25, 2013 @ 1:46 pm - February 25, 2013

  22. Actually, this linguistics trick has a name: Neuro Linguistic Programming. It uses an overt message to imply a covert message. Here is someone who recently posted about this:

    The way you counter it is by addressing the unspoken message which basically leaves the overt rhetoric naked and defenseless.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 2:05 pm - February 25, 2013

  23. At the local level, I am far more liberal than even I am willing to admit.

    So am I, but at a PERSONAL level, not at a government level. For example, I feel that a community has an obligation to help those who have fallen on hard times but I also feel that it is a private obligation and that is why we have private charities where we help each other through rough times. I do not believe that is the role of the federal government. It is not the job of the federal government to micromanage the people of the US for “the greater good” (words directly out of Orwell). It is OUR jobs to pull together and do it on our own. The more government does, the less the people are going to do on their own. If government does less, the people step up and help their neighbors if they want to receive such help themselves.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 4:06 pm - February 25, 2013

  24. And as an example, we have spent huge sums of money “fighting poverty” since Lyndon Johnson … and roughly the same percentage of people are in poverty today as were in poverty then. It has had absolutely no impact, it has destroyed community help organizations, it has enabled people doing nothing to help their neighbors and destroyed a sense of community cohesion because some nameless, faceless, government is now responsible for it and some bureaucrat in DC decides who gets what.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 4:09 pm - February 25, 2013

  25. Wow – great question: “Were any of you political changers?

    My oh my, was I a polital changer. I was at one time so liberal that I voted for George McGovern (me and Massachussets), he didn’t even carry his home state. Looking back now, that silly vote was more because I had a seething hatred for Nixon. I also voted for Jimmy Carter twice. That means I never voted for Reagan(sorry Ronald – wished I had). It is for that liberal experience I have so zero respect for libs like Evan that comment on this blog. It makes no sense to engage them in a discussion because their minds are vapid and they are world class “kool aid” drinkers.

    For me the change to being the conservative that I am is wrapped around money. Two incidents led to the transformation. One was the first time in my life in the mid 1980’s that I earned over $100,000.00 in income for the year. When I realized how much I paid the government in taxes, and the complete lack of any “return on my investment” it made me question why they needed so much of my “hard” earned income. The second incident was when I was subject to an IRS audit around the same time. They treated me like I was Al Capone. They were merciless – and made me feel like I was a criminal for a couple of simple mistakes. That opened my eyes to the power and threat that our government was becoming.

    Today, that power and threat of our government to the people, led by an intractable Alinskyite, is so dangerous that I fear we have past the proverbial “point of no return.”

    Great post Kurt. Good question.

    Comment by mixitup — February 25, 2013 @ 4:17 pm - February 25, 2013

  26. Economic reality in the form of severe hardship is the only thing that will reach liberals. Leftists are a lost cause. From my perspective, all we can do is articulate liberty as best we can and understand the Constitution and our legal system. At some point, we will rediscover freedom and our teachers will be other nations whose cultures are not as corrupted as our own. China, a nominally communist nation, has repeatedly warned us against continued deficit spending. America has become surreal. Is it worth renouncing my citizenship? I’m sad to say that I’m not sure.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2013 @ 4:18 pm - February 25, 2013

  27. I do NOT approve of stealing people’s earnings at the point of a gun to “redistribute” involuntarily. It does neither the taxed nor the recipient any good. It is simply institutionalized theft. And if you don’t believe it is “at the point of a gun”, simply don’t pay your taxes long enough and the people with the guns will eventually pay you a visit.

    THIS is the sort of social liberalism that I approve of:

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 4:24 pm - February 25, 2013

  28. And notice in the above story … government took 2/3 of those lottery winnings and the private citizen who is left with 1/3 shells out their own money to fund a fire station and a sewage plant because government doesn’t have the money? It’s great they are doing that. It’s sad that they have to.

    “progressive liberals” are the most hypocritical political entity on the planet.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 4:30 pm - February 25, 2013

  29. And the GOP used to be the liberal party.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2013 @ 5:29 pm - February 25, 2013

  30. I used to be a liberal. I started SLOWLY coming around during the Clinton years. I grew to really dislike Hilary mostly, and Bill somewhat. I lived in NY and saw her as a carpetbagger, and was appalled by Schumer’s debasing obsequiousness. But I still (shamefully) voted forGore in 2000. But it was 9/11 that woke me up. I was just appalled by the Left’s response. There were a number of us, it seemed: Cinnamon Still well wrote about her Road to Damascus, and a BUNCH of us wrote to her about how her column really spoke to us. I had just left NYC right before 9/11-it took me MONTHS to read through the list of the dead. And I am still not sure whether anyone I knew was murdered or not. (I worked at 5 WTC for a while. Regularly ate at Sbarro’s–the second Sbarro’s I frequneted destroyed by terrorists.It was YEARS before I ate at a Sbarro’s again. I kissed the Jerusalem bombing by about an hour.) First it was the Left’s attack on America that alienated me. Then it was their attacks on Israel. Then, I started resenting the taxing and spending. Their hypocrisy. Their moral relativism. Their bad behavior. Their alinsky-ism. Their intolerance. Their fondness for dictatorships. Their disregard of and contempt for the US Constitution…

    I lived in Marin, and for the longest time, I felt like the only conservative there. Then a great Tea Party group started, I found the Women’s Republican group. There’s hope. If Marin can have a small, but incredible group of conservatives, there is hope.

    Comment by lee — February 25, 2013 @ 6:53 pm - February 25, 2013

  31. I MISSED the Jerusalem Sbarro’s bombing by about an hour.

    Comment by lee — February 25, 2013 @ 6:55 pm - February 25, 2013

  32. Ignatius,

    Now that I think about it the GOP is a liberal party. We conservatives want to keep the liberal ideas of the Founding Fathers. When they formed this nation it was a novel and liberal idea to form a Republic. As conservatives, the GOP should maintain THOSE liberal ideals.

    Comment by Roberto — February 25, 2013 @ 6:59 pm - February 25, 2013

  33. These coming-to-one’s-senses stories are illuminating and often very entertaining and I appreciate every one of them but I’m someone who has never been a liberal or remotely on the left side of the spectrum. It’s fascinating that anyone buys into leftist claptrap or slouches into it by default. Am I slouching, never having visited the dark side? Is the sex better?

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2013 @ 7:03 pm - February 25, 2013

  34. Here’s another thing–I recall back in my idiotic liberal days having a couple of Republican friends. We did good natured ribbing back and forth. I recall a Hannukah card with GHW Bush’s picture on it wearing a kippah and the caption was “Hannukah Bush.” I gave them each one. But now I feel that if my liberal friends knew of my political persuasion, they’d dump me. I am still in the conservative closet. But back in the 1980’s things were less nasty. (And my conservative friends were very tolerant of my idiocies.)

    Comment by lee — February 25, 2013 @ 7:22 pm - February 25, 2013

  35. [i]Is anyone else amused at the cowardice of Little Kiwi?[/i]

    I kind of feel sorry for him, it’s obvious he has some serious mental health issues.

    Comment by V the K — February 25, 2013 @ 9:26 pm - February 25, 2013

  36. It’s fascinating that anyone buys into leftist claptrap or slouches into it by default.

    The thing is, they don’t. It is a long process of indoctrination that is multifaceted and starts from childhood, in many places. In fact, when many people who call themselves Democrats are quizzed on things not having to do with politics, you find that they actually have conservative positions but the moment you apply that same concept to a political issue, they do an about-face.

    For example, my son goes to middle school. In this last election one of the kids asked what the difference was between Democrats and Republicans. The teacher replied that Democrats want to help poor people and were for peace between nations while Republicans were always attacking other countries and want to help the rich people. In fact, there is an organization dedicated to indoctrinating school students on the proper “progressive” world view. It is called the North Dakota Study Group which has nothing in particular to to do with North Dakota and isn’t really about studying. This is important if you consider that 3/4 of the new voters eligible to vote in 2016 are 14 years old right now and the new voters for the 2018 mid-terms are only 12. They are being actively indoctrinated now as to the “correct” political orientation.

    Outside of school there is a constant nudging by social programming even in the entertainment media and cartoons. Republicans (or conservative leaning people) are portrayed as dull-witted or foolish hillbillies and there is the notion that “these aren’t the kind of people you want to be associated with, they are uncool”. This is true in TV, movies, even snarky comments by DJs. The messaging is constant. People of that age are still looking around at other people trying to collect cues as to how they are “supposed” to be and what they are “supposed” to like and dislike. They have been taught NOT to trust their own judgement by their teachers and often their parents. They are told to listen to what they are told. For many, it isn’t until people reach their mid 30’s or even their 40’s before they finally figure out that they can follow their own judgement.

    So here we have programming in the schools, programming in the social media, and there is considerable programming just by example among their peers. Students who produce papers, reports, stories exposing the “progressive” view are praised and given a better grade. A conservative point of view might be met with silence. You can become quite the celebrity just parroting the latest Daily Kos talking points and be seen as “well informed”.

    There is another aspect as well. Milton Friedman pointed this out in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s. Basically behind every “progressive” initiative are two completely separate forces operating in an “unholy alliance”. You have what he calls the “do gooders” or the people who genuinely in their hearts believe they are doing something to help someone in need or making the world a better place. This is generally the larger group and is the “grass roots” support. This group is generally being manipulated by a special interest that stands to directly profit from the initiative. In fact, the initiative might (and often DOES) do exactly the opposite of what it is sold to do. The example he uses is minimum wage laws. You have a lot of people who want to see the poor have a better life. On the other hand you have the labor unions who would like to see the minimum wage be their union scale. Every time the minimum wage is raised, it makes union labor more competitive (or less uncompetitive, depending on how you look at it). So the big labor dumps millions of dollars that then goes into the pockets of politicians and into various “grass roots” agitation groups. We see it all the time in California where you hear radio ads that are funded by the California Teachers Association or some other union or union group. In fact, there is nothing more destructive you can do to the poor than increase minimum wages. While many who are already working will get a raise, some will be laid off and increase the number of unemployed poor. More importantly, it pushes that first rung of the economic ladder higher and makes it more difficult for that person who has never held a job to land that first one. And even then, only 5% of the workers earning minimum wage are actually “workers supporting families”, which is at whom much of the rhetoric is aimed at helping.

    The examples are many. Regulations that are designed to “protect” the consumer from mega-banks, for example, drive smaller banks out of business and force them to merge and makes the big banks bigger. In reality, the Republicans are for small business, it is the Democrats who actually end up creating and helping the “too big to fail” situation and all the while they are selling it as being anti-business. In fact, they have even managed to turn the word “liberal” around 180 degrees from its real meaning. The Republicans ARE the liberals. We believe in individual liberty. It is the Democrats who believe in state management of nearly every aspect of our lives.

    Many Democrats are to people what cat ladies are to cats. The cat lady can not stand the thought of those poor kitties out there all on their own in the dead of winter so she takes them in to “take care of” them. The cats end up being packed into slums as she micromanages them but the task becomes too much, requires too much overhead, and living conditions begin to deteriorate as they are in Detroit. The cat lady isn’t really doing it to help the cat because the cat would probably have a much better quality of life if she had left it alone. She is doing it to help HERSELF not feel bad. Liberals often don’t do things to actually help people so much as they do it to make themselves feel better, like they are doing something about a problem. If you try to explain to them that they are actually doing a disservice to those they are trying to help, you are treated just like any other person who points out a flaw in a “fundamentalist’s” logic. You are attacked and ostracized.

    Liberals in the rank and file are driven mostly by emotion but they are directed by cold, calculating special interests who take advantage of their zeal.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 25, 2013 @ 10:06 pm - February 25, 2013

  37. Wow, there are so many good comments here, I hardly know where to start! I might have to reflect on some of them in one of my future posts.

    Comment by Kurt — February 25, 2013 @ 11:06 pm - February 25, 2013

  38. This is a very intelligent group. Yes, liberals have gone to far. So far that they are defending gays against their own will. If gay conservatives want to be put down and denigrated why should liberals defend them.

    Comment by George — February 25, 2013 @ 11:20 pm - February 25, 2013

  39. Jane Austen,

    Somehow, I missed your comment @ #11, yet responded to your comment @ #8. My error.

    In truth, I do not know how go about engaging the liberals. I never attack. But, I always question and redirect when they start to wander. Not long ago, I was using this technique with a woman who finally told me that I was engaging in the fallacy of circular argument. She was quite superior in her pointing out my illogic. So, I asked her to explain the fallacy of circular argument to me. Her answer was that I kept going back to the same point in asking her same thing over and over again. Ergo: fallacy of circular argument!

    Where people become familiar with some lingo they simply do not understand is a mystery to me. Maybe they find terms thrown around on blogs and adopt them as another arrow in their quiver. (Or, better, as another quiver in their arrow, since they have no idea what they are talking about.)

    My dream is for there to be a daily MSM debriefing program where good natured people point out the misleading, censored by omission and agenda promoting “news” being peddled by the teleprompter readers.

    What are your suggestions?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2013 @ 11:26 pm - February 25, 2013

  40. Comment by Roberto — February 25, 2013 @ 6:59 pm – February 25, 2013

    Yes, it is the Republican party who has the liberal philosophy. The Democrats have simply somehow managed to co-opt the word and apply it to theirs in Orwellian fashion. In Australia, their “Republicans” are the Liberals. Their “Democrats” are Labor. We now need to call the Republicans the “classical liberal” to distinguish it from the “neo-liberal” which is actually “socialist”. But we do have a lot of big government Republicans. Remember it was Republicans who created the FDA, the EPA, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 12:07 am - February 26, 2013

  41. Yes, liberals have gone to far. So far that they are defending gays against their own will. If gay conservatives want to be put down and denigrated why should liberals defend them.

    This is a joke, right? On average, leftists (particularly gay leftists) are far more intolerant of gay conservatives than straight conservatives are. But you know that already.

    By the way, wouldn’t it be absurd if you based your political beliefs on how popular they would make you?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 26, 2013 @ 12:34 am - February 26, 2013

  42. This is a very intelligent group. Yes, liberals have gone to far. So far that they are defending gays against their own will. If gay conservatives want to be put down and denigrated why should liberals defend them.

    Comment by George — February 25, 2013 @ 11:20 pm – February 25, 2013

    Actually, George, as has already been shown, you and your fellow Barack Obama liberals are homophobic bigots who tell gay people to kill themselves.

    Perhaps you should seek counseling to deal with your rage and hatred that makes you tell people to commit suicide just because of their political affiliations. You do realize that it’s abnormal for you to do that, right? You do realize that for your Obama and your Obama Party to actively encourage you to tell gay people to kill themselves is wrong, don’t you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2013 @ 12:37 am - February 26, 2013

  43. These coming-to-one’s-senses stories are illuminating and often very entertaining and I appreciate every one of them but I’m someone who has never been a liberal or remotely on the left side of the spectrum. It’s fascinating that anyone buys into leftist claptrap or slouches into it by default.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2013 @ 7:03 pm – February 25, 2013

    I think, Ignatius, in this day and age, there are rare souls that can sidestep it, given what crosspatch describes above. Once you study the Eastern Bloc and Nazi Germany, what one figures out very quickly is that the right combination of indoctrination, direct and indirect social consequence, and the seemingly-endless ability of the human mind to rationalize anything for the “greater good” makes it terrifyingly easy to enslave an entire culture.

    But, to the question of Jane Austen and Heliotrope, the Nazis were not eliminated through reason and logical argument; they were eliminated when people finally punched back twice as hard. In the case of Crosspatch’s son’s teacher, I think my answer would likely have been to ask her how she justifies to children that she cheats on her taxes and commits welfare fraud like her Obama Party says is OK, then point out that she endorses Charlie Rangel for doing so and, when she protests, say that her Obama Party says that ethics laws are racist and that if she were to enforce them, she would be a racist.

    There’s really nothing else to do. Liberals and Obama supporters need to be figuratively forced to view the concentration camps they’ve created and have it hammered into them over and over and over again that their support of Obama is what created these problems. There simply is no room to consider Obama supporters thoughtful or intelligent any more, since they clearly respect neither and will stop at nothing, including murder, to eliminate conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2013 @ 1:01 am - February 26, 2013

  44. #36, I just checked out North Dakota study group — creepy!

    #39 heliotrope, I’m still thinking this through (re: engaging folks on the left). I never cared much for politics before, so am still in the process of assimilating new information. This leftist domination of media, education, and politics is new information for me. When I was on the liberal side of the fence, I never saw this.

    A few fledgling thoughts that I am yet to put into any logical order:
    1) As one of the comments above observed, there are two kinds of liberals — a vast majority of them are just well-meaning and want to do good. These are the people we need to engage. I am worried that if we don’t, fiscal conservatives will keep losing elections and we are screwed as a nation.
    2) Most of their beliefs have been built over years/decades, so they will not change overnight. We shouldn’t expect them to. Our goal needs to be to get just a thought planted, or trigger the drive to examine/learn.
    3) Rather than argue a host of issues, it is good to find a couple of fulcrum points — and these points may be different for different people. For example, I talked to one of my liberal friends about my experiences working with local non-profit organizations. These organizations tend to spread their finite resources on a large number of initiatives, most of which have little to do with their core mission — and they have no concept of prioritization. Therefore, they end up being highly ineffective. I used this analogy for the government which declares war on a host of things — poverty, chronic homelessness, malnutrition, maleducation, terror, less-than-satisfactory healthcare, old age… you name it. And tries to do all this in addition to its main duties — national defense, law & order, etc. Is it any wonder that it is short of $$ and every one of those evils still persist and get steadily worse? I saw the light-bulb come on, slowly… and he conceded that perhaps the government does too much… It’s a start. I have since given another friend a couple of charts: (a) unemployment rates among blacks, which tracked the white unemployment rates until 1930s, and then increased dramatically afterwards (b) The sudden increase in the slope of education costs in the past 15 years. Ironically, these changes coincide with pivotal government interventions.
    4) On a national level, conservative/libertarian groups are in dire need of an active engagement strategy. Gelman has interesting data on how different groups of people vote — e.g., income levels, age groups. Each of these groups needs a different hook and message — i.e., poor people who consistently vote democrat are worried about different things than the affluent, educated, elite who vote democrat. It is not going to be easy to execute a tailored communication strategy in face of formidable leftist propaganda — but it helps to have a strategy to start with.

    As I said, I am still thinking this through. This country needs someone like Milton Friedman now more than ever.

    Comment by Jane Austen — February 26, 2013 @ 1:28 am - February 26, 2013

  45. There is another important issue that people need to understand. I hear a lot of complaining lately about Republican “messaging”. I even hear people on the left or in the media criticizing the messaging of the Republicans. Right now the messaging doesn’t matter.

    The reason it doesn’t matter is because the Democrats control the communications channels to the people the Republicans need to reach. Sure, there is Rush Limbaugh and Fox and Levin, etc. but they are preaching to the converted. The Republicans need to get their message to the so-called “low information voters”. Those are the people whose world view is spoon-fed to them on the top of the hour news broadcast on the car radio on the way to work. If it doesn’t appear in that 5 minute news broadcast, it doesn’t exist. The Democrats control that channel. Nothing the Republicans can say, no matter how perfectly presented, will appear there. The only thing that will appear in that space is Republican mistakes, missteps, gaffes, etc.

    So until some Republican decides to purchase a broadcast network or a network of local radio stations and run it at a loss as an investment in order to make larger gains in general economic growth got by changing the minds of the people, nothing is going to change.

    News has never been impartial. Benjamin Franklin was a scoundrel in that he flat out lied. He had an agenda. He made up “news”. Every paper has always reflected the agenda of the publisher. The difference was that we had many different viewpoints available to us. Towns had several different papers. That is no longer true. There is one paper, often the one paper in most cities in an entire region is owned by the same publisher. The “push” media has become owned by the Democrats.

    We need a Republican who is willing to buy big papers like the LA Times or the Boston Globe. We need a Republican who is willing to buy a broadcast network. Until that happens, we can have the best message in the world but only the choir is going to hear that sermon. The average man on the street is only going to hear the Democrat version of things.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 3:42 am - February 26, 2013

  46. There is a principal of a New York City school who is also a member of the NDSG. This teacher was attempting to provide organizational and messaging advice to Occupy Wall Street. I know this because I was accidentally copied on some emails related to this where apparently a typo was made in a couple of emails.

    I was privy to some of the stuff that was going on. There was a lot of background discussion by a lot of people about how they could leverage the occupy movement to further their agenda. Key in this were members of NDSG.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 3:46 am - February 26, 2013

  47. And yet another thing, but I am too sleepy to go into it in detail, is that the political right has nothing like the synergy of a funding organization like the Tides Foundation and a PR organization like Fenton Communications. ALL of the “progressive” organizations have their communications managed by Fenton. That keeps them on-message and working as a consolidated front. The funding mechanism provided by Tides allows “donation laundering”. It allows people to donate to “progressive” causes without being directly associated with any particular cause. You can make a donation to Tides and “earmark” your donation to a specific organization. Tides will bundle your donation with others also targeting donations to that group, maybe “salt” it with a little extra money of their own, and make a lump sum donation to that cause. The cause shows only a donation from Tides of an amount different from the amount of any specific donor. Tides shows the donations but is not required to show how they were “earmarked”.

    We are dealing with a racket. Until we develop something similar we are, in the Army vernacular, pissing up a rope.

    People on the right have no clue of the organization they are dealing with. We have the most corrupt political machines in the country on the left, the machines that run Philadelphia and Chicago. These are seriously nasty organizations. Same with many organized labor organizations. If we really want to compete, the place to start is in the messaging channel, then going to the funding and the PR channel.

    One thing Fenton specializes in is in taking a nationally organized agitation front and making it look like it is many different separate organizations. This gives the impression that something has more popular support than it really has. Imagine if every different “tea party” affinity group had a completely separate name and operated as such. It would look like a solid wall of hundreds of different grass roots organizations. But on the right we have been screwing up as various people at various times attempt to try to speak for “The Tea Party” as if they are the national voice of the movement. What we need to do is allow each city or even neighborhood group to have a different name. Make the “tea party” disappear. Have “Cincinnati Citizens for Action” and the “Nashville Coalition for Common Sense” and the “Citizens for Responsible Government” and “The Center for Decentralized Solutions” that are all actually the same thing but all of them operating under different names. That makes it really hard to target. Right now if you target “Tea Party” you target the whole thing. That is what the left has done. If you dissolve the “Tea Party” into hundreds of different groups, that becomes impossible, that is what the left does. That is what Fenton Communications specializes in.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 4:03 am - February 26, 2013

  48. We also need to make political donations under $5,000 anonymous and not reported. Do you want the “death panel” run by partisan Democrats to look up your political donations before they decide your course of treatment?

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 4:06 am - February 26, 2013

  49. This country needs someone like Milton Friedman now more than ever.

    Walter E. Willians and Thomas Sowell come to mind.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 4:38 am - February 26, 2013

  50. Williams, that is

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 4:39 am - February 26, 2013

  51. Is the irony completely lost on people that the great voices of the political right today are the voices of black men? Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson?

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 4:42 am - February 26, 2013

  52. Crosspatch has tapped into the work that Glenn Beck researched and reported on brilliantly when he was on Fox News at 5:00 pm. Beck charted the whole interlocking Tides Foundation, ACORN, Soros and scads of other organizations all working together. While liberals howled and ridiculed Beck, what they were never able to do was to shoot holes in his research and reduce him to the level of ideological hack.

    Beck left FOX to start his own network where he controlled everything with his own money and would be personally in charge of the boundaries. His FOX programs stayed with FOX and he does not own them. It is a shame that they are now essentially lost. But all the time he was at FOX he assiduously advised people to TIVO the shows, so they must still be out there.

    The radical left is very deeply organized in its socialist revolution and it has been highly successful in capturing and manipulating the Democrat agenda.

    A few (very few) liberals are waking up to the lies and distortions and have taken the principled course of examining the truth and leaving the fold.

    Unscrambling eggs is not in the cards. I agree with North Dallas Thirty that we must meet these lies and liars head on and blow their constant acts of hypocrisy to smithereens.

    Dr. Ben Carson was brilliantly soft spoken when he explained why political correctness censored speech and ideas. As I have read and replayed what he said at the prayer breakfast I came to realize that his genial manner and plain speaking really left an enormous welt on the whole leftist game plan.

    I don’t expect Letterman, Mahrer, Stewart, Piers Morgan, Maddow, Ed, Bashir, Behar, Whoopi, Soledad, Scarborough or any of the other provocateur talking heads to be able to successfully abuse and ridicule his clear logic and gentlemanly demeanor. Dr. Carson speaks from experience and a deeply held belief system. All the others are on the clown car pit crew all demanding the trophy without actually winning at any aspect of the race.

    We have to counter the radical leftist revolution that is well under way. Andrew Breitbart recognized that the counter revolution must be waged in the media, the popular culture, and within the government.

    Levin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Sowell, Williams, Lars Larson and many other writers and regional radio personalities are terrific at doing the research and framing the message. Our job is to help spread it by personal contact.

    Everyone here should take a certain pride in the fact that the leftists can not make any headway without lying, distorting or attacking. They have basically been reduced to throwing stink bombs and running away.

    Does anyone know a conservative who has finally had enough, seen the light and switched over to the liberals? I’m not talking about the calculating Arlen Specter types; I am referring to everyday people.

    Obviously, I don’t have the burden of complexity in this issue that confronts a conservative who is gay. Having known plenty of activist gays, I can not imagine how to separate their gay activism from their liberalism.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 26, 2013 @ 9:25 am - February 26, 2013

  53. Here is a very intriguing look at our political mess and an interesting way of approaching it.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 26, 2013 @ 10:53 am - February 26, 2013

  54. I am quite unaware of Beck’s work. My information comes initially from the various antiwar agitation groups back in about 2003 or so. I noticed that all of them, including Cindy Sheehan, were Fenton clients. I also noticed during “climategate” that the web site set up and used by the most corrupt of the “scientists” involved was actually set up and managed by Fenton. Then around the time of the Plame incident and some stories that appeared in the Washington Post and how Dana Priest’s husband worked for a “progressive” organization that was funded by Tides and whose PR was Fenton. It just started to come clear to me how Fenton was operating. They are basically the world’s largest astroturf organization.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 11:38 am - February 26, 2013

  55. For example:

    And this:

    Those are just a couple, there are a bazillion more and a lot of this pre-dates Becks work, I’m pretty sure. I would post more links but I don’t know how many can be posted without being kicked into moderation automatically.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 11:42 am - February 26, 2013

  56. This one was pretty important, too:

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 11:43 am - February 26, 2013

  57. But the important notion is that until we actually have members of the press who want to play the role of the press in keeping the politicians honest, we are sunk. Right now the Obama administration is playing the pres corps like a fiddle and they appear to be fine with that. They simply repeat the White House propaganda line and conveniently ignore the growing pile of dead bodies in Mexico and Libya and around the world. Marco Rubio gets more press from taking a sip of water than Jessie Jackson Jr gets for stealing $750,000.

    The press is not only ignoring the corruption and incompetence, they are enabling it and are thereby party to it.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 11:48 am - February 26, 2013

  58. Crosspatch- LOVE your cat woman analogy!

    Comment by Chris H — February 26, 2013 @ 12:57 pm - February 26, 2013

  59. crosspatch

    It seems that we have similar thoughts. I have comment various times that conservatives need to get control of a or start network to reach out to viewers of the MSM. That conservative students of journalism infiltrate the print media and once established take over and begin to publish news at it is and not rewrite it to suit an agenda. A number of times I have suggested that those interested in politics start with getting elected to school boards, junior college boards, and when conservatives
    gain control the boards then they change the curriculum and get rid of the courses that have been indoctrinating our children in socialism, the convoluted interpretation of history to suit their agenda; i.e. hate America, Euopeans stole the land from the Native Americans, and pc.
    School boards are the minor leagues of politics, where skills are honed. Many Democrats had their beginning with school boards. We wonder why children are so poorly educated. Conservatives seem to want to begin thier political careers in the middle or at close to the top if not the top.

    When I lived in L.A. i coached a youth soccer team made up of students from Belmont High. It seems as though they were taught to hate GW Bush, did not know about the Bill of Rights, but did know about the 14th Amendment. I tried to correct their information and they would tell me I sound like a Bushie. But they saw me twice a week while they saw their teachers probably four days a week. With the garbage that is being presented as education, we shouldn´t wonder at things like Occupy Wall Street.

    Comment by Roberto — February 26, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - February 26, 2013

  60. Chris H–I was just thinking the same thing! I’m definitely gonna use it…it communicates a great truth in a way even a “low information” voter can understand.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — February 26, 2013 @ 1:32 pm - February 26, 2013

  61. Crosspatch/heliotrope,

    Interesting information. I looked at some of the links you gave. The way the propaganda machine works — it doesn’t surprise me. In my work, I have long since understood the significance of appealing to people’s emotions. Much to my dismay, I learned in the early stages of my career that most people are not very rational — and even the ones who are, are affected by subterranean biases and wiring. So if you want to sell something, you cannot just rely on facts and analysis. You actually have to appeal to emotions and biases or you are out of luck. A lot of the principles they are talking about in the communication agenda I am more or less familiar with. I don’t blame them for using the principles. What I find very objectionable is that they are using this technique to brainwash people — especially children, who should be encouraged to develop critical thinking skills, as opposed to being spoon-fed doctrine. This is a new form of religious indoctrination.

    It begs the question — what is in it for them? For Soros, for journalists, for educators, for college students that donate huge amounts of time at the grass roots — what is in it for them?
    1) Self-interest — crony capitalists, unions, etc.
    2) Self-aggrandizement — those with socialist bent who want to see that world-view prevail
    3) Well-meaning do-gooding — most others

    I recently read some stuff by Soros. He lamented the loss of desire on part of wealthy elite to seek “truth”. He says money has become an end unto itself and people are pursuit of truth is all but forgotten. He was harshly critical of Bush and pretty much admitted to have done everything he could to defeat him. But he also said that the same lack of interest in “truth” has shown itself in the current administration — he did not go into detail, but you could read his doubt between the lines.

    The fact is, with people who obfuscate truth for self-interest and self-aggrandizement — there is nothing to be done. Everyone else, there is hope. They just have to see some of their fundamental beliefs put to test. I would like to think that there are still journalists, youth, and teachers who fall into that bucket.

    The best example of conservative leadership and articulation of its principles in the recent time came from Ben Carson. Thomas Sowell sounds almost defeated and tired sometimes. This is why I miss Friedman — he had such optimism and energy about him.

    Comment by Jane Austen — February 26, 2013 @ 3:13 pm - February 26, 2013

  62. Comment by Roberto — February 26, 2013 @ 1:28 pm – February 26, 2013

    People absolutely need to get more involved at the local level. If you pay attention to things like city councils, planning commissions, school boards, etc. you will find that many of the more vocal members of the public are student “activists”. The left shows up at these functions in great disproportion to their numbers but because they participate, their exert considerable influence. We can change that by becoming involved. Attend the meetings, take note of the tactics, pay attention to the issues, communicate with the members of these organizations. Even make up an interesting sounding group if you have to. Maple Street Citizens for Responsible Leadership or whatever. You can make letterhead with Word. Don’t allow the left to wield all the power.

    Also people need to understand that the GOP is organized much differently than the Democrats. The GOP is completely decentralized in that your local Republican committee is completely separate from the national committee. It gets no funding from the national party, it generally doesn’t take orders from the national party. Republicans are much less likely to get involved with their local Republican committee. Change that. Get involved. Because a real dues paying member of your LOCAL committee. Joining the national committee doesn’t make you a member of your local organization.

    If you are unemployed, retired, working only part time, this is an EXCELLENT opportunity to become involved in local politics. If you are looking for work, it also gives you another opportunity to make connections that might land you a job.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 3:17 pm - February 26, 2013

  63. I have comment various times that conservatives need to get control of a or start network to reach out to viewers of the MSM. That conservative students of journalism infiltrate the print media and once established take over and begin to publish news at it is and not rewrite it to suit an agenda.

    Academia filters out conservative journalism students by giving them poor grades because of their viewpoints. Your professor will give you poor grades, your fellow students will ridicule and harass you. You are a challenge to the foundations underlying their belief system. They are going to defend that and in so doing, attack you.

    There is nothing as intolerant as the “tolerant” left.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - February 26, 2013

  64. Example: Being a race-baiting, xenophobic, bigot is perfectly ok if you are on the left and doing it “for the cause” in order to attack a Republican:

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 3:28 pm - February 26, 2013

  65. crosspatch,

    There are several remedies for overcoming the obstacle mentioned. One, you can fake being a liberal for the good grades then upon graduation let their conservatism show through slowly until they have a track record. Or else, they can stay in school and accept the poor grades. Most companies never ask for grades. They might ask for proof of graduation and a 2.0 student and 3.0 student has the same diploma. It´s the upper echelon that receive the cum laude and summa cum laude diplomas. If any of them desire teach on the university level that would be the way to infiltrate, especially in the smaller colleges and universities.

    I enjoyed my sixteen years on the County Central Committee and four on the State Committee.

    Comment by Roberto — February 26, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - February 26, 2013

  66. Or one could obtain their journalism school from a place like Hillsdale College which did have a journalism program, last I saw. But then you have to get someone to hire you.

    What people have to understand, though, about journalism is that the media outlet furthers the agenda of the publisher. If the publisher wishes to further a left wing agenda, a journalist writing from the right will never see print or will be relegated to the local police and fire call column. This has, by the way, always been the case and is nothing new. What has changed, though, is that papers had competition. There was some incentive to at least be somewhat balanced or your customers left. In many cities today there is only one paper so there is no need to worry about “balance”.

    Same happens when all three broadcast networks report from the same angle.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 6:34 pm - February 26, 2013

  67. Another example of the hypocrites on the left:

    This was a “journalist” who got caught reading talking points from a propaganda web site during an interview on television.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - February 26, 2013

  68. And this is how crony capitalism flourishes in the left-favored world of large government:

    Comment by Jane Austen — February 26, 2013 @ 9:13 pm - February 26, 2013

  69. Generally Democrats tend to do exactly the opposite of what they claim to be doing. Take regulations sold as being designed to “protect” customers and investors in some company or another. The Democrats like to spout off that the GOP is the friend of “big business” and how the Democrats are against “big corporations”. The data would show exactly the opposite. The larger players in any market LOVE additional regulations and the Democrats LOVE to regulate. Compliance with regulations is expensive. “Huge Magacorp” building a compliance department takes up a tiny percentage of their revenue. A small company has to comply with the very same regulations that the big company does. The cost of compliance is the same but that cost is a much larger portion of the little company’s earnings. This forces the smaller operations to raise prices or cut services in order to remain afloat. This makes them less competitive in the marketplace. They might eventually be forced to go out of business or merge with one of the larger players. The net impact of Democrats regulating things to death is that the big get bigger and the smaller operations go away. They are killing the small family business.

    They also do some smarmier things, too. Notice that only one really major financial operation went under during the mortgage bubble: Lehman Brothers. If you go over to and have a look at Obama’s and McCain’s top 20 campaign donors from 2008, you will notice that every one of the financial companies that donated to Obama were deemed “too big to fail”. The ONE company that donated heavily to McCain, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to go under. Who made that decision? The Chairman of the NY Federal Reserve … Timothy Geithner.

    When Democrats are discussing regulatory policy, they will call in the big players for discussions. When the Republicans do that, they talk to the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations that represent small and medium sized businesses. The Democrats spew a line of rhetoric about how they are all about “protecting” the little guy but their policies do just exactly the opposite and our press *never* calls them on it. The Democrats will pay lip service to groups like Occupy Wall Street while they do things that are exactly counter. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class (and big companies run by Republicans) goes away under the Democrats.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 10:16 pm - February 26, 2013

  70. […] Social Liberalism: Going Too Far […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Meme of the Week: Crazy Cat Lady Liberals — February 26, 2013 @ 10:23 pm - February 26, 2013

  71. We need a Republican who is willing to buy big papers like the LA Times or the Boston Globe. We need a Republican who is willing to buy a broadcast network. Until that happens, we can have the best message in the world but only the choir is going to hear that sermon. The average man on the street is only going to hear the Democrat version of things.

    Well, Mr Murdoch has said “Emphatically, no” to purchasing The Boston Globe. Rumor has it that he is interested in purchasing some of the print assets being put on the market by the Tribune Company—including the Los Angeles Times. But I know of dozens of people (and I don’t even live in the same time zone) who will dump the LAT like a Pinkberry with broken freezers if News Corporation buys it.

    That little detail aside, there’s something else about your strategy: it’s perfect if your target audience is Fred MacMurray, Ward Cleaver, or George Romney. (Which is why I’m guessing you’re at least over 40, if not 50 in personal chronology.) Overall, this is same type of approach which won the White House for Mitt Romney. Oh, wait…

    The fact is (be it sad or otherwise), the traditional outlets of news & information conveyance are not what they used to be and are declining. Newspaper readership and circulations are down. Broadcast networks have some of their lowest viewership ever. The biggest news programs on those declining network outlets aren’t the nightly news programs, but the morning shows (which can more correctly be described as “infotainment”). Still, the audience for same is more fragmented than it has ever been. There are more competitors for an increasingly fractured audience. For the most recent ratings week of data, ABC had 5.489 million viewers, NBC had 4.736 million, and CBS 3.029 million, for a grand total of 13.254 million viewers of the most highly-viewed news-enabled programming on air. This for a country of well over 300+ million persons. That, of course, is less than 5% of the possible ears & eyeballs.

    More young people get their news and information from The Daily Show and pop music radio news blurbs than from traditional broadcast news outlets and newspapers—even that school staple for many of us growing up, the Weekly Reader, has gone the way of the telegram. (Plus the news blurbs on the music channels aren’t the traditional 5 minutes-with-commercials in length, but more like 2:15 in toto.) Further complicating the matter is that many younger consumers are unable to differentiate the difference between news and opinion—especially when presented in a pseudo-news format (like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report).

    No, the way to reach younger people is where they hang out: social media, their phones, and their friends. (I say “younger” because that’s where the future voters will be coming from and the need to tap into their information sources is now, not when they become actual voters. That doesn’t mean we should give up on older voters, but they are harder to reach than they once were and less impressionable.)

    As an example from my limited sphere of contact (at least compared to many of my acquaintance), during the 2012 election, I could not open a smartphone app which used push advertising and NOT see a Barack Obama ad at least once during the session. Ditto for BO & O/B banner ads on many internet sites. Conservatives can whine about the snow job that the Obama campaign did on the country, but at least they played the game effectively. The Republicans, on the other hand, did not.

    So, the most effective way for a Republican to lose money (instead of purchasing persuasion) would be to buy one of the dead-tree dinosaur newspapers or a broadcast network [especially at a time when cable companies are the ones buying broadcast networks]. What conservative benefactors need to do is to partner with new media professionals and then come up with a marketing strategy and fund that option. Exactly what it may look like could be anyone’s guess at this point in time, but it won’t be the home of Uncle Walter, Chet & David or Tom, or Peter and Diane. That is how our side will compete in the new marketplace of ideas; much like William F. Buckley did with another generation decades ago with National Review.

    Comment by RSG — February 27, 2013 @ 8:07 am - February 27, 2013

  72. Aside on Murdoch,

    Anyone watch Top Gear Monday? They were talking about a new car by someone, including such gems as “The body is really made of copper. Which mean it will age and pattern, provided no one steals it to sell for scrap. The dash is made of recycled paper, we assume the left side is the Guardian and the right is the Standard. And it doesn’t need to be Bluetoothed, because the dash will already have gotten into your phone and listened to your voice mail.” I was laughing outloud.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 27, 2013 @ 12:58 pm - February 27, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.