RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Arguing with Liberals (by Pat Sajak)

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
It's not very popular these days for a Hollywood type to specifically criticise a conservative.

---

Quote:

---

Wednesday said:
Sajak Says...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Well, Jim, if that's the case, since when do the opinions of rock singers', actors', etc., mean anything?

---

Quote:

---

rex said:
Does anyone know how alex Trebek feels about this?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
It's not very popular these days for a Hollywood type to specifically criticise a conservative.

---

I guess you didn't catch Chris Rock bashing Bush in front of dozens of chortling celebrities at the Oscars (TM) a few months ago.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
I put rockers waaaay above game show hosts.

Game show hosts are only slightly above attorneys on the heirarchy of humanity.

---

.......What the fuck is wrong with you!?

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
I put rockers waaaay above game show hosts.

Game show hosts are only slightly above attorneys on the heirarchy of humanity.

---

.......What the fuck is wrong with you!?

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:

Pat, i'd like to buy a sense of humour.

---

Quote:

---

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:

Tell Pat to go buy a fucking vowel. Since when do game show host's opinions mean anything?

I put rockers waaaay above game show hosts.

Game show hosts are only slightly above attorneys on the heirarchy of humanity.

To Pariah: Hey dude, you tell me. You got all the answers even though you're just going through puberty.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
It's not very popular these days for a Hollywood type to specifically criticise a conservative.

---

I guess you didn't catch Chris Rock bashing Bush in front of dozens of chortling celebrities at the Oscars (TM) a few months ago.

---

from "Do Racists have lower I.Q.'s..." topic :

Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
Hey dude, you tell me. You got all the answers even though you're just going through puberty.

DO I HAVE TO PUT IN A FUCKING SMILEY EVERYTIME? ISN'T THE JOKE IN THIS OBVIOUS? CHRIST, I'LL BET G-MAN IS SITTING THERE KNOWING I WAS ONLY POKING FUN AT HIME, while you're getting your barely pubescent panties in a wad.

---

Quote:

---

TK-069 said:
OK, nonpartisan question: Sajak mentions Liberal "moral superiority", but Conservatives are now portrayed and perceived as the party of moral values. Doesn't this seem kinda wonky?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
and in the end, their message of morality is getting spread a lot faster and wider than the conservative opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
Is there really anything new that can be said in the "liberals say/do this, conservatives say/do this" conversation?

Is this really not boring or tedious or mundane to you guys?

I'm sorry, but anytime anyone starts a sentence with "liberals/conservatives think that" in reference to the opposing political viewpoint, I just tune them out, because those people are usually full of shit, have no idea what they're talking about, and wouldn't know how to properly go about talking about it even if they did.

There's nothing more to be said on the subject. Every possible criticism has already been touched on in one of whomod or DaveWB's ridiculously over the top rants.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
Is there really anything new that can be said in the "liberals say/do this, conservatives say/do this" conversation?

---

Quote:

---

Is this really not boring or tedious or mundane to you guys?

---

Quote:

---

Randal_Flagg said:
I think that the labels are part of the problem. A common informal fallacy is "hasty generalization," i.e. an inference is drawn about an entire group from an insufficient sample.

---

Quote:

---

Randal_Flagg said:
The truth is every conservative and liberal is different in their own unique way.

---

Quote:

---

Randal_Flagg said:
What bothers me now is that the conservatives seem to be the most transparent in their exploitation of these labels,

---

Congradulations, you managed to discredit yourself in your very first post by decrying an act then doing exactly what you condemned.

But I am interested in hearing about this "neo-conservitive" movement. While I'm unfamiliar with it's perpuse I fear it must be stopped.

Oh, and, SHUT UP, WHOMOD!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:


But I am interested in hearing about this "neo-conservitive" movement. While I'm unfamiliar with it's perpuse I fear it must be stopped.

---

Quote:

---

April 17, 2005

The Evolution of the Neocons

From cynics to believers.

The term "neoconservative" started out as an insult, and it is still used that way. When people say that the selection of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank marks the triumph of neocons in Bush administration foreign policy, they are generally not indicating pleasure. Some cynics even say the "neocon" label is anti-Semitic: Doesn't it just refer to a Jewish intellectual you disagree with?

That's way too harsh. But what does neoconservative actually mean? Rich Lowry, a conservative of the non-neo variety writing in the current issue of the National Interest, defines a neocon as someone with a "messianic vision" of using American power to spread democracy, an indifference to the crucial distinction between what would be nice and what is essential to national security, and excessive optimism that we can arrange things according to our own values in strange and faraway lands.

Wow. It was not always thus. When the word first surfaced in the 1970s, its sting was in calling people conservatives five or 10 minutes before they were prepared to admit it. The core group had famously been Trotskyites at City College in the 1930s. By the 1950s and 1960s, they had become anti-Communist liberals and supporters of the Vietnam War. The antiwar movement and the '60s counterculture alienated them and pushed them even further to the right. Affirmative action was another sore point. Finally, Irving Kristol, dubbed the neocon godfather, decided to take the name as a compliment. He defined a neoconservative as "a liberal mugged by reality." (That phrase also summarizes the plot of the Great Neocon Novel, "Mr. Sammler's Planet," by Saul Bellow. Bellow's last novel, "Ravelstein," actually has a character modeled after Wolfowitz.)

The great neocon theme throughout this period was tough-minded pragmatism in the face of liberal naivete. Liberals were sentimental. They believed that people were basically good or could easily be made so. Domestically, liberal social programs were no match for the intractable underclass or even made the situation worse. Internationally, liberals were too hung up on democracy and human rights, refusing to recognize that the only important question about other countries is: friend or foe.

Somewhere I still have a souvenir of neoconservatism's previous high point. It's a baseball cap from the 1988 Republican convention that says, "Jeane Kirkpatrick for vice president." This was serious. Kirkpatrick, an austere academic with a crooked scowl, was about as unlikely a politician as you can imagine. But give the Republican Party credit: It does sometimes swoon over ideas. (When was the last time the Democrats did that?) Ronald Reagan had swooned over a 1979 article by Kirkpatrick in Commentary, the neocon house organ, and he made her his U.N. ambassador when he became president. She gave the big speech at the 1984 GOP convention, leading the massed Republicans in a chant of: "They always blame America first."

Kirkpatrick's article, "Dictatorship and Double Standards," was a ferocious attack on President Carter for trying to "impose liberalization and democratization" on other countries. She mocked "the belief that it is possible to democratize governments anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances." Democracy, she said, depends "on complex social, cultural and economic conditions." It "normally" takes "decades, if not centuries." Kirkpatrick thought that American power should be used to shore up tottering but friendly dictators, like Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua and the shah of Iran. Her complaint was that Carter sat on his hands.

Now we have an administration that — wisely or foolishly, sincerely or cynically — claims to have the aggressive pursuit of democracy everywhere as the focal point of its foreign policy. And the Bush Doctrine is said to have the fingerprints of neoconservatives all over it.

This is quite a reversal by the most influential group of American intellectuals, yet it has received surprisingly little comment or explanation. The chief theoretician of the new neoconservatism is political scientist Robert Kagan. Writing in Commentary (where else?) in 1997, Kagan noted the difference between his notions and Kirkpatrick's, and had some fun at the expense of opponents who had been all for a high-minded foreign policy until the neocons started calling for one. But he had little to say about the reversal of the neocons themselves.

Plenty of explanations are available. The collapse of the Soviet Union (which the neocons did not predict — their theme had been that the Soviet Union was getting stronger and stronger while the U.S. diddled) surely changed the calculus. The seemingly easy spread of democracy over the last couple of decades may have disproved Kirkpatrick's pessimism. But all these explanations require an admission of error, something the neocons are not very good at. They are selling certainty.

---

Quote:

---

rex said:
I'm pretty sure this one is rx3.

---