November 9, 2011

"Interesting, smart liberals are called... conservatives."

Said Meade, just now, as I was reading the poll results and the comments on this post on Herman Cain and expressing my puzzlement about how so few of my readers are liberals. I said: "Why do conservatives find what I'm saying so yummy? I would have thought interesting, smart liberals would love this."

168 comments:

John Lynch said...

We all got mugged?

What I think is happening is that for people of Ann Althouse's generation what was liberal has become conservative. They didn't change.

JFK was for tax cuts, civil rights, and a strong national defense. Modern Democrats are only for one of those.

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."

lyssalovelyredhead said...

When Althouse and Meade first got together and she started featuring pics of him, I pointed out how great it was that she met someone who is both dead sexy and amazingly clever. I'd just like to reiterate that.

Seriously, though, in my experience, there simply are not a lot of liberals who are interested in engaging in actual thought, examining and exploring the logic of their positions, and making fine nuances. There are a lot of conservatives who won't, either.

Witness the libs who frequent here. I think Matt tends to do a good job at this. Robert Cook is somewhat of a loon, but is consistent and somewhat thoughtful. I'm sure that there's one or two more I'm not thinking of, but the majority just seek to drop in, drop insults and half-truths, and never examine anything in depth and see where the ends of their positions are or why anyone thinks differently. Not interesting, not smart.


It saddens me. If I could find a liberal version of Althouse, I'd love to check it out. Doubt that it exists, though.

YoungHegelian said...

Prof. Althouse,

You, being older than I, are even more of a product of the 60's. You remember a time when the Left thrilled to playing on the edges that the 1st amendment permitted them. You remember when the Left thought that getting in peoples' faces through humor or argument was a prelude to getting them to think for themselves.

That Left is dead.

In its place is a sanctimony that would embarrass a New England Calvinist married to tender feelings worthy of your average 13 year old girl.

How we got from there to here is a subject for a book and not a blogpost. Suffice to say that the old Left saw themselves as defenders of the Enlightenment, and the new Left wants to stamp it out.

hombre said...

Interesting, smart liberals?

Surely you jest.

themightypuck said...

The echo chamber world we live in where everyone can find their happy place has been widely commented on.

hombre said...

Liberals forty years ago may have been interesting, even smart.

They have been replaced by people called liberals who are neither.

Bob Ellison said...

You have a sampling error.

I did not respond to your poll, because I'm a conservative who knows such polls are silly.

Also, Meade is correct. But many interesting, smart people who hold conservative views vote Democrat and think they are...liberals.

Ann Althouse said...

"dead sexy and amazingly clever"

Well put. Totally accurate!

Conserve Liberty said...

130 years ago I would have been called a liberal.

Now some Twitter nut job who teaches Social Justice in High School dismisses me as a Classical Liberal ("we don't use muskets any more, either.")

They're just labels. The question is whether, in the balance of state versus individual, one shades somewhere to the side of the individual.

Meade said...

For example: lyssalovelyredhead

I rest my case.

Wahrheit said...

I have been reading Bill Patterson's excellent bio of writer Robert Heinlein and what an interesting example of Meade's thesis. An Annapolis grad, Heinlein was an insider in Sinclair Lewis's "EPIC" Democrats in the 1930s. By the late 60s he was considered "reactionary" for his desire for the US (his own country!) to win in Vietnam.

He went from being a smart, interesting liberal to being a "conservative" without changing his views much, if at all.

David R. Graham said...

I'm liberal, or try to be. I'm also gay, or try to be. While neither smart nor interesting, I am conservative. The ordinary, forced nomenclature is a narrow nuisance. What has no top or bottom or front or back is a good thing.

edutcher said...

Love what John Lynch said.

There was a time Liberals and Conservatives could work together. When the Leftists ran all the Liberals out of public life or into the Republican Party, that ended.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Seriously, though, in my experience, there simply are not a lot of liberals who are interested in engaging in actual thought, examining and exploring the logic of their positions, and making fine nuances. There are a lot of conservatives who won't, either.

Conservatives are a bit more willing to tolerate differences of opinion. They're more willing to listen, simply because there are all kinds of variants of fiscal, social, and other types all the way to Libertarians.

Ann Althouse said...

"dead sexy and amazingly clever"

Well put. Totally accurate!


Nice to have your good taste validated, isn't it?

m stone said...

A couple of exceptions in the commenters.

madAsHell said...

There is an excessive amount of cognitive dissonance in the left. The Professor does a good job of identifying conflicts in statements, and actions. Do you really want to read a blog that casts aspersions on your convictions?

Lyssa - You forgot about byro-j, and byro-Love.

What the hell does byro mean anyways??

Hoosier Daddy said...

Smart liberal is an oxymoron.

Palladian said...

Most people in the United States who call themselves "liberals" are no such thing. As mentioned before, the good and proper definition of "liberalism" has been hijacked by Democratic partisan and leftist, control-oriented social interests.

I consider myself a liberal, and the precious few interesting commenters who remain here I consider liberals. Althouse and Meade I consider liberals. But I almost never call it that, because the enlightened usage of that term has been largely forgotten. Both "liberal" and "conservative" were bigger than our current pathetic partisan political system, and were both once free of the clutches of repressive ideologies such as centrally-enforced environmentalism, social conservatism, etc. But as human history shows, the desire to control, coupled with the power to control, destroys all philosophies of human liberty in time, through stupidity, sloth, deception, manipulation and the inattention and inertia of the enlightened.

KitaIkki said...

"JFK was for tax cuts, civil rights, and a strong national defense. Modern Democrats are only for one of those."

Not even "one of those," since the 2nd amendment is a fundamental civil right.

new york said...

“An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.”
Cato The Elder

Browndog said...

If you want more balance, i.e. liberal readers, you have some work to do, Althouse.

Start with an angry disposition combined with non-nonsensical moonbattery and you'll be well on your way-

Oh, and hey-dumb it down a little...lot.

Cedarford said...

There are many smart liberals and blue dog dems and Reagan Democrats and independents and moderate Republicans.
And there are dumb as rock Fundie conservatives.
But as a thumbrule, I think it is true that the average conservative is smarter than the average Democrat....And better informed on matters of math, science, business, agriculture...

Like smart Democrats that say and do stupid things (see Chuck Schumer with his 1800 SATs, Spitzer, Barney Frank) - conservatives can become brainlessly infatuated with unelectable candidates (Paul, Palin, Cain), and take a near pride in ignorance about hoity toity academia debates...

But here's a question.

A lot of conservatives in their Cain lust, have even excused his pecadillos even if they are true. Because he is persecuted, Clinton did worse....etc.
Even if the charges are true, these "family values" conservatives still declare they will stick by a man that has multiple marital infidelities - and have apparantly no problem with an oversexed black man chasing blondes on the road and in his workplace.

Recently - Spitzer, Weiner, Terry Standford had to bow out. John Ensign had to declare he was done as a Senator after he was caught in serious infidelities. Vitter survived, but no one is talking about the sleazy Vitter running for President...and of course the "family values social conservatives" are also enamored of the Sleazy, sleazy Newt.

Go figure.

ricpic said...

It doesn't matter how brain-dead today's debased version of liberals are -- their pitch is winning. They offer to take care of the great mass of apoliticals in exchange for the apoliticals' liberty. An irresistible deal.

rcocean said...

As Reagan said, I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me.

Palladian said...

And I might add that it's depressing that people assume that the Republican party is the natural recourse of those driven from liberalism by the so-called progressives. The Republican party is as uncomfortable home for conservatives, and "classical" liberals, as the Democrat party. And don't bother suggesting the libertarians....

Canuck said...

You despise "liberals." I mean the people you call liberals, a slang term in the US that refers to a political and rather undefined, card-carrying ACLU group of people. This terms should not be confused with "Liberals" as in the Canadian Liberal political party, or neo-liberal in terms of neo-liberal economics.

You use the term "liberal" to refer to a group of people who you see as politically correct, annoyingly hypocritical in terms of sexual harassment (see Bill Clinton), bleeding-heart altruists who don't actually engage in charity, are deficient in terms of reason, and alarmingly inclined to support mob-like mass protest efforts and undemocratic political recalls.

You think they are snobs and misguided in terms of their cultural aesthetic tastes and tendencies.

I wouldn't go so far as to say you see the people you call liberals as a threat to the Republic. But you might.

You see them they way John Adams saw Thomas Jefferson and his followers. Or the way Thomas Jefferson saw John Adams. In any case, no love is lost between y'all.

In general, why would you be surprised that you are not appealing to that particular demographic?

I'm actually quite curious as to why you have chosen to live in an overwhelmingly "liberal" town when you might be more comfortable in, say, a more politically "conservative" area. Perhaps it is due to the job. But when you think about retiring, you think about retiring to Boulder. Boulder! Of all places!

There are lots of beautiful Conservative towns to live in Colorado. But Boulder!?!

Seven Machos said...

We all want the world's problems to be solved. Those of us who eventually realize that no one can solve any problems by government edict, or with optimism, or by transferring money from rich to poor -- those people become conservatives.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Most people in the United States who call themselves "liberals" are no such thing. As mentioned before, the good and proper definition of "liberalism" has been hijacked by Democratic partisan and leftist, control-oriented social interests.

This. Those 'blue dog' Democrats that haven't embraced big government statism are what I would consider liberals that I could actually have an intelligent discussion with.

The problem as Palladian illustrates is that the majority of liberals identify with the Pelosi wing of the Democrat party.

Seriously, though, in my experience, there simply are not a lot of liberals who are interested in engaging in actual thought,

Or intellectual honesty for that matter.

m stone said...

ricpic: It doesn't matter how brain-dead today's debased version of liberals are -- their pitch is winning. They offer to take care of the great mass of apoliticals in exchange for the apoliticals' liberty. An irresistible deal.

And that, friends, is it in a nutshell. Not to mention feeling good about themselves

madAsHell said...

Wait!! "his pecadillos"???

Eight women come out of nowhere with accusations in the space of two weeks.

No evidence to date....just accusations. There is no stained blue dress.

Who is paying Gloria Aldread??

This is a smear job.

This will probably make him a stronger candidate.

Browndog said...

It might help if we properly defined today's "liberals".

They are not liberals at all.

They are the scourge of all civilized societies world-wide.

The are progressives

Seven Machos said...

I get my news filtered through three primary sources not including Drudge (which should go without saying: Instapundit, Kausfiles, and Althouse. Instapundit is a recovering liberals. Althouse and Kaus are as well, though they don't as readily admit it.

Just a stray observation.

rocketeer67 said...

The Republican party is as uncomfortable home for conservatives, and "classical" liberals, as the Democrat party.

You know what? You're right. But hey, it keeps the rain off my head and it's relatively warm.

For now.

Snark said...

I'm a Canadian Liberal which makes me wildly left by American standards. I consider Althouse a conservative, and that's precisely why I follow. Ditto for Instapundit. In fact I don't read ANY liberal blogs because I don't need to. I know the issues and I know the arguments because they are what I largely believe myself. I read conservative thinkers to protect my own objectivity, to expose my mind to people who have life experience different from my own and to seek out flaws in my own thinking and assumptions. It is crippling easy to live in an intellectual echo chamber on the Internet and the airwaves. It's hugely seductive to be always right, always the good guy, always the one with the wisdom, but it's an utter distortion.

America's Politico said...

These debate people are so backward.

No live tv. This is 2012 coming.

Even Aljazeera would have live.

Is America going 3rd world?

GMay said...

Well shit, Palladian nailed it at 6:48pm. Nothing more to say really.

I keep waiting for the next buzzword that represents the incarnation of the poisonous left since the conceited "progressive" is even becoming a little toxic these days.

Charlie Eklund said...

"I would have thought interesting, smart liberals would love this."

Don't forget unicorns!

Wahrheit said...

Canuck:

You use the term "liberal" to refer to a group of people who you see as politically correct, annoyingly hypocritical in terms of sexual harassment (see Bill Clinton), bleeding-heart altruists who don't actually engage in charity, are deficient in terms of reason, and alarmingly inclined to support mob-like mass protest efforts and undemocratic political recalls.

Wow, that's as good a one-graph descrition as I've seen! I would add "an overwhelming urge to control the lives of others" to neatly wrap up the package.

Shouting Thomas said...

How can this constant policing of the workplace for the slightest expression of sexual interest, humor or association be called liberal, Althouse?

The net effect of the sexual harassment hysteria created by feminists is that we must shut down and become asexual drones in the workplace. The aesthetic environment in which we spend eight hours of our day have been neutered by decree.

How is this liberal? If this is liberal, what in the hell has liberalism become?

roesch/voltaire said...

As a "liberal" and sometimes Libertarian, who posts here, I find Lyssalovelyreadhead's comment about libs--" but the majority just seek to drop in, drop insults and half-truths, and never examine anything in depth and see where the ends of their positions are or why anyone thinks.." to be one of the many generalizations and exaggerations that could apply to many of the "conservative" posters on the blog as well, but ignored in the belief that "we conservative" are so superior. I think a sense of humility and willingness to consider other view points and evidence is how one develops a critical perspective, but of late this blog has become rather shrill and narrow in its perspective-- see the comments on the recent Cain posting for example. By the way, a liberal version of Althouse would be Tenured Radical for starters.

Matt said...

You did not have a selection in the poll that I would pick.

You are missing:
I never was, but I've liked him, yet I don't think he has what it takes to win the nomination or the general election.

The only choice you left for me was: "No, but I'm sorry he's failing, because Obama would beat him." Because that the honest truth.

Choice #1 is interesting but who would feel sorry to see him fail so badly if they thought he wasn't up to the job or may in fact be guilty of sexual harrassment?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Liberals, no matter how smart and interesting, are very rarely interested in dialogue with conservatives. They think conservatives are evil, with no redeeming virtues, while conservatives just consider liberals to be stupid, or at best misguided. For instance, Love is stupid, garage is misguided. (Where has garage been? Trysting with Trooper York?) As proof of this thesis, I've had comments elided at three different liberal sites--no cussing or even ad hominems, just straight disagreement. They just can't stand it. Here, all viewpoints are welcomed, and it is great fun to beat the intellectual crap out of the stupid and misguided.

Troubled Voter said...

don't play dumb. this is a conservative site, written for conservatives. the commenters are overwhelmingly conservative--they call liberals dumb and evil minutely, and you never take issue with it. you do take issue with certain things your commenters do say, so you cannot profess to stay above the fray.

furthermore, you're way more defensive of conservatives than anything liberal/democrat/not conservative. you will parse a sentence/picture/mere thought if it allows criticism of a liberal. meanwhile, whole sheets of conservative thought that are lacking in logical reasoning/factual basis get excused or ignored--there's a liberal plot somewhere behind it to be uncovered.

finally, in the past year as this blog has turned more and more into a hyper-local blog about wisconsin and your own personal role in partisan politics, the level of its analysis has dumbed down. you're no longer the professor, but one of the people fighting (or dispatching your husband fight) out in the streets. how could this be interesting to someone who doesn't agree with what you're fighting, on occasion actually fighting, for?

Seven Machos said...

minutely

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

how could this be interesting to someone who doesn't agree with what you're fighting

You'll have to ask Garage, Alpha, Matt, Allie, J., etc., etc., etc. -- all those leftists who don't post here.

Run along now.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Smart is not the same thing as intelligent to me. Smart indicates intelligence governed by wisdom, whether it is your own or your willingness to listen to others who are wiser.

Most liberals I know are pretty intelligent but most are really stupid. That is they lack wisdom of their own and/or they are too arrogant to listen to others.

Wisdom generally comes from experience and that is why people generally move from liberal to more conservative as they age. That's the natural progression. Liberal is pretty cute until about 25-30 years old then it goes downhill fast.

nevadabob said...

If I could find a liberal version of Althouse ...

The liberal version of Althouse is Ann Althouse.

Almost nothing she writes is written from a conservative perspective (that's why she's interested in someone like Meade.)

Althouse is a lifelong liberal and a lifelong Democrat and she always will be; someone who voted for Barack Obama and will do so again.

(Mark my words.)

frank said...

Wahrheit said...
I have been reading Bill Patterson's excellent bio of writer Robert Heinlein... .

For sure a 'stranger in a strange land', like us all.

John M Auston said...

Often, a name or label stays the same, but what it refers to, might change drastically. In such a case, if one continues to identify with the name or label, it usually indicates that one is not paying attention.

I'm old enough to remember that if you wanted to 'insult' a piece of electronics, you would label it "Made in Japan". Now, not so much, right?

In the 1960's, I quite identified with the label "Democrat Party". Now, not so much.

People who say "I've always voted for the Democrats, and I always will" have labeled themselves intellectual "lightweights", not to be taken seriously, imo.

Troubled Voter said...

@ seven machos--

1) sorry, every minute

2) why not try and address the substance of what I was saying?

run along now :)

roesch/voltaire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

why not try and address the substance of what I was saying?

Because it was silly hackery.

Seven Machos said...

Hey it's Roesch! Another leftist who doesn't post here. Forgot all about Roesch.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lyssalovelyredhead said...

NevadaBob said: If I could find a liberal version of Althouse ...

The liberal version of Althouse is Ann Althouse.


I meant a liberal version of Althouse, the blog, not necessarily of Althouse the person.

Speaking of which, though, could you imagine a blog written by a historically conservative blogger working in a traditionally conservative field in a very conservative area, who voted for McCain in 2008 (but maybe soured on Bush), but nevertheless attracted dozens or hundreds of liberal commenters, most of whom respected and adored that blogger?

Matt said...

Tyrone Slothrop

Liberals, no matter how smart and interesting, are very rarely interested in dialogue with conservatives.

Try me. For most of my life I have lived with and known plenty of conservatives whom I call friends. I never get into the kind of disagreements with them as I do on blogs. The reason is because on blogs it is all impersonal and a lot easier to get offensive.

But I do like a good debate. That's the main reason I hang around this blog. That and because Ann proves herself to be sensible some of the time.

Carol_Herman said...

I'm not a liberal! My mother voted for NIXON!

Well, way back when Pauline Kael said she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon ... I repeated this comment to my mom.

I learned back in 1968 ... or was it 1972? That you can't tell what a person is by looking at them. Or even hearing them speak.

It's not like identifying if a person is a man. Or a woman.

But I do know that the conservatives have been having a problem.

Heck, right after November 2010's election ... that tossed Pelosi out of the Speaker's office ... all the republicans in DC didn't know what to do with the Tea Party! They thought everyone who wasn't an elected politician ... should just go home and STFU.

Then, you got the Chinless Wonder in the Senate ... doing his dancing with Harry Reid. And, you got Boehner in da' House. The puppy with the blue eyes "got picked." But he's not house-broken!

Peter Hoh said...

And in a world in which Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity define what it means to be a conservative, interesting, smart conservatives are cast out of the fold.

See Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, and Conor Friedersdorf.

PETER V. BELLA said...

There are not too many interesting smart liberals left. They are angry and dull.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

I realize that we're all enjoying being self-congratulatory here, but I think that this, if true...

"Conservatives are a bit more willing to tolerate differences of opinion."

...may be no more complicated than a shift in the understanding of the word "tolerate."

I don't know that many left/liberals even have a word that means what the word "tolerate" used to mean. Tolerance is acceptance. One need not tolerate bad ideas or unwelcome opinions or different *wrong* points of view.

And of course conservatives are defined as intolerant because they refuse to be accepting of what they ought to accept.

But that's not what the word means or ought to mean.

If there is not a conceptual space available for tolerating unsavory ideas, then only the pre-accepted is part of the conversation. This is obviously a narrow way to function in the realm of ideas.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane said...

I find you readable because you and Meade think about individual liberty and human kindness. And beauty in nature.

I have nothing in common with leftists who rejoice in destruction and violence. I also wondered recently what happened to the anti-war movement, and if Barack and Michelle ever stop thinking about themselves long enough to shed a tear for the sad orphans of the many who have died in Afghanistan on their watch. I just sense a coldness about them.

Carol_Herman said...

OH! And, now you have these 8 contendahs. All appealing to the religious conservatives. Because Iowa "goes first." And, there's some mistaken belief ... that America went from Smoke Filled Rooms ... to "choosing a presidential candidate by winning Iowa."

Please don't hold your breath.

There comes a time when the most cherished religious beliefs just don't work in politics.

There are no fairytales in politics.

It's a hard schlepp being interesting every single day.

And, nobody knows, yet, how the race against Obama in 2012 will shape up.

Maybe, in Mississippi there was a lesson? Where you couldn't get passage on the "pre-birth person-hood" amendment.

Most people don't begin worrying about kids ... until they need diapers. And, daycare. And, all the things parents need to raise their children.

Without clowns coming along to complain that families aren't "large enough" ... but taxpayers don't want to be taxed any higher, either.

Those against abortion aren't willing to spend what's necessary on those that do get born.

So much for all the litmus paper.

And, the name calling.

Oh. And, stop with the name-tags.

Liberals. Conservatives. Bullshit.

Peter Hoh said...

To believe that conservative institutions embrace diversity of opinion, one would have to ignore such things as Christopher Buckley getting kicked out of the National Review, David Frum getting nudged out of the American Enterprise Institute, Bruce Bartlett getting the boot at whatever think tank he was working at, Richard Cizik being forced to resign from the National Association of Evangelicals, etc, etc.

Peter Hoh said...

sorepaw, what was there for a fiscal conservative to love Delay and Bush were running up the deficit?

Matt said...

I've been all over the political blogospere for the past ten years and can tell everyone here unequivocally that the difference between liberals and conservatives is simply [and only] over a view of politics.

Meaning everything else is the same. I have read the stupidest most offensive, intolerant shit on both conservative and liberal blogs - especially in the comments section. But people are people. Period. Today's conservative is tomorrow's liberal. Same person.

But if you are a conservative you tend to overlook stupid shit said by your side. Same if you are liberal. It's easy to shrug rather than condemn someone in your own ranks.

Smart conservative blogs?
Frumforum
Right Wing Nut House
Instapundit

Smart liberal blogs?
Washington Monthly
Talking Points Memo
Atrios [Eschaton]

JohnJ said...

“Most people in the United States who call themselves ‘liberals’ are no such thing.”

I try to resist the temptation to label people, but this certainly is true.

“Liberalism” in this country has become more a fashion statement than a political philosophy. I suspect that’s one reason that much of the public activism on display by the “left” appears so incoherent: placards of Che, mindless drumming, nitwits telling us what democracy looks like, and disaffected 20 & 30-somethings—clad by Nike, Doc Marten, Gap & Ralph Lauren—organizing the overthrow of their corporate masters through flash texting on their iPhones and iPads.

Unfortunately (or ironically), we have the perfect president for the times: a well-meaning (I still believe), but ultimately destructive charlatan, propped up by the media and a sizable % of the voting public made up of hipster wannabes and those same self-described liberals. Contrary to what many here seem to believe, that peculiar coalition, along with the unions, is going to make Obama very difficult to beat next year.

I hope Romney’s up to it.

Seven Machos said...

I love that leftists so proudly will not tolerate intolerance, except of course their own intolerance. It's a badge of great honor.

The Crack Emcee said...

interesting, smart liberals

BWAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!

Carol_Herman said...

Let's say you want to make a dish that's called "liberals." But all you can find in your house are "athiests."

Well, it's not the same thing.

You just can't cast aspersions on the opinions to which you disagree.

Yes. It's made worse when you get a group of people together ... who can vote in a candidate to lead the party in a presidential election ... like Bob Dole. And, John McCain.

You trot them out. And, they lose.

Now, with the economy in the drain, past the flushing episode with the toilet ...

And, you'd like to see Obama lose ... What happens?

You pick 8 contendahs ... who think by attracting conservatives ... they can wipe out their own party's competition and "rise to the top." To get chosen. Like all the other losers who've been chosen, before.

Why is that?

How hard is it to articulate good ideas? Sarah Palin, it seems, does this every day. And, I've heard Donald Trump (who can be harder to listen to than Limbaugh) ... and, yet. He identifies some real solutions ... to the problems that were created IN THE MARKETPLACE.

We were all involved in watching the bubble grow.

While Sarah Palin hit another round out of the ballpark ... when she pointed out that the collection of people in Zucotti Park were all there LOOKING FOR HAND OUTS!

"How come only bankers get handouts?" ... goes the complaint.

Well, the bankers got handouts, because they know all the insiders, who've been elected on the money they got from the bankers. Seems easy enough to understand.

While it's only freaks who think they can get the same handouts ... just to go away ... and leave Zucotti Park!

That's NOT empowerment!

This is not a religious experience, either!

And, now that Herman Cain got scratched ... maybe, a new day will dawn, ahead?

Peter Hoh said...

And what's with Huntsman and Daniels getting smeared with the "moderate" tag? Both of them racked up substantial conservative achievements as governor, and yet they couldn't be taken seriously in this nominating process.

ndspinelli said...

Snark..You big hoser. I like your style. I read local and national liberal papers and blog some @ liberal sites. However, I am an iconoclast..liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I was all liberal in my youth but have gained some wisdom. You'll find a mix here from both sides of the political spectrum and some polar opposites..along w/ some bipolars also!

Peano said...

Why do conservatives find what I'm saying so yummy?

Complex question.

Seven Machos said...

Peter Hoh -- How come Pat Buchanan can't get on MSNBC to talk about his best-selling book?

Why is Evan Bayh called a moderate Democrat?

Why can't George Will be editor of New Republic?

Why couldn't the bourgeoisie people live any more under Pol Pot's leftist regime in Cambodia?

And what's your point, dude? Think carefully. You sound like an eighth grader.

el polacko said...

if you want more 'liberal' readers, all you need to do is to start each posting with "sarah palin is SO stupid that..." they'll swarm like flies to you-know-what.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

The simple answer is that Althouse is liberal only in her politics. In outlook she is profoundly conservative. She believes in rules and standards. She is deeply skeptical of public performers. She is affronted by self-indulgence and stupidity. Knowing that man is fallen, she has little patience with breast-beaters, but a great love for comic screwballs.

themightypuck said...

Well said Henry.

gadfly said...

@Cedarford . . .

"... conservatives become brainlessly infatuated with unelectable candidates (Paul, Palin, Cain)..."

"A lot of conservatives in their Cain lust , have even excused his {sic} pecadillos ..."


The judgement of electability is simply a opinion and Cedarford's writings do not demonstrate special knowledge -- only a better-than-thou attitude.

Cain's peccadilloes -- even if we could establish that he has any -- are by definition only trifling faults.

John Lynch said...

Snark-

Yeah, I don't read people I already agree with. What's the point?

I tend to post when I disagree with the consensus for the same reason. Why say something someone else has said better?

Shouting Thomas said...

However, I am an iconoclast..liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

No, spinelli, you are a malicious pathological liar, and you have disgraced yourself today. Repeatedly.

You've demonstrated repeatedly how the left uses false accusations, and how the sexual harassment laws encourage pathological liars like you to make false accusations.

In order to win an argument on a weblog thread, you've accused a man you've never met of pedophilia, sexual harassment and hatred of women.

You are totally corrupt, vicious and stupid to boot. One of the most vicious and corrupt morons I've ever encountered.

You have truly disgraced yourself completely with your idiocy and your compulsive lying.

But you've done us all a service. For no more reason than to preen your ego in an internet thread, you've been willing to use the most vile accusations you can muster.

You are one dumb fuck. And you are a pathological liar.

Peter Hoh said...

Seven, your examples are not remotely related to the ones I gave.

I listed a handful of people who once had a place within the conservative establishment. For something that has more to do with style than substance, they've been cast out (Frum, Bartlett) or taken off the list of those who can be considered in contention for the GOP presidential nomination (Daniels, Huntsman).

Shouting Thomas said...

And the humerous part of this, Spinelli, is that you too fucking stupid to even know that you've disgraced yourself by fabricating false accusations.

I am quite certain that you will respond by making even more false accusations.

You are quite depraved.

roesch/voltaire said...

As a liberal/Libertarian who sometimes posts here, I find comment disingenuous as Althouse usually likes to take umbrage at any little Liberal slight, while generally passing over the conservative silliness.
And I think Lyssalovelyreadhead's comment about liberals as "... the majority just seek to drop in, drop insults and half-truths, and never examine anything in depth and see where the ends of their positions are or why anyone thinks differently" is part of a smugness that actually reflects many of the faults of the conservative posters on this blog. One need only look at the shrill examples and the recent Cain chain of posts. A sense of humility and willingness to examine other's view points and evidence is needed for critical thought on both sides. And as a liberal counter to Althouse might be Tenured Radical--After correction, I should note that I have been blocked from conservative sites such as the American Thinker to Lucianne for expressing views that do not fit with the conservative mode--this site is one exception, but I turn to it primarily because of its often local focus more than its conservative views.

Chip S. said...

Peter Hoh said...

To believe that conservative institutions embrace diversity of opinion, one would have to ignore such things as Christopher Buckley getting kicked out of the National Review...

One thing that seems to differentiate conservatives and libertarians from "liberals" is that the cons distinguish between respecting those who disagree with them and keeping them on the payroll. Lots of NR readers were dumbfounded by the stupid shit TCod wrote toward the end of his tenure there, but I don't recall anyone calling him evil. Rich, stupid, and clueless, yes. But the left has arrogated to itself the right to proclaim whose beliefs are consistent with "social justice".

Also, I've gotta say that I must have missed the smart, incisive posts at Frum Forum. I only read it for the unintentional humor.

Seven Machos said...

Look into it. Huntsman is not a serious candidate.

Your daft inclusion of Daniels shows that you simply are out of your depth. Daniels bowed out of the race himself and was never officially part of it. So, again, why isn't Bayh a Democratic presidential candidate? What about Zell Miller?

As far as intellectuals go, do you seriously expect the conservative establishment -- whatever that is -- to embrace people they disagree with? You let us know when some leftist columnist supports a Republican presidential candidate, or otherwise some cause that is hugely unpopular with liberals, yet remains beloved by liberals.

I'll wait.

Until then, up your game.

Seven Machos said...

Mickey Kaus got shitcanned from The Daily Beast. Does that fit your goofy thesis, Peter? How?

Seven Machos said...

Peter -- How doe the shitcanning of Mickey Kaus at Daily Beast/Newsweek fit your thesis? How will you shove that in there, dude?

John Lynch said...

Kaus is about as liberal as Althouse. Is there a bloggingheads of those two?

Shouting Thomas said...

Ann Coulter's new column on the source of the sexual harassment allegations against Cain.

bagoh20 said...

Honestly Althouse, you just piss them off with the stuff you post. It doesn't take much truth to get them to never come back to visit. You saw how liberals at the Madison protests and the Occupy Whatever react to people with a different point of view. Instant hate.

You and Meade often were pretty non-confrontational, but even that was not good enough. They want submission. You say the wrong thing just once and they won't be back.

You piss me off every day and I always come back, but I'm not a liberal in the modern sense to which I assume you are referring.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Meade sometimes makes childish comments.



Not interesting.

Not smart.

Paco Wové said...

And he wears army boots!

And his mother dresses him funny!!

DADvocate said...

In my world "interesting, smart liberals" are a rarity, especially the interesting part. They are predictable in their thinking and frequently use rote arguments and responses.

Take my mother, for instance. Educated (or is it credentialed?), a MS with a double major in Art History/Asian Studies, fluent in Chinese. Or, my late father, the psychology professor. In the world of political thought, they were/are stuck on FDR.

To be interesting, you generally need to have some creativity, something new, genuine exploration of ideas and such. I see very little of that in liberal I know, read about or whose comments I read on blogs.

DADvocate said...

I'm also gay, or try to be.

Do you have to try? I wouldn't think it'd take much effort if that's your natural tendency, unless you have trouble finding a partner.

DADvocate said...

A lot of conservatives in their Cain lust,...family values, blah, blah, blah

You provide and excellent excellent of the rote, predictable, brain dead liberal thought pattern. Nothing you've ever said was unexpected or unique.

Peter Hoh said...

Seven, yes, Kaus is a much better example than those you offered at first.

The cases of Larry Sumners and Juan Williams also come to mind. I don't think that Dick Morris counts, however. He seems more of a naked opportunist than the others.

Note that I didn't posit that this only happens on the right.

While Daniels was being talked about as a candidate, more than one prominent conservative pundit declared his candidacy a non-starter for his supposed squishy moderate politics. His record suggests otherwise.

ricpic said...

Carol Herman said...

I learned...that you can't tell what a person is by looking at them. Or even hearing them speak.

Wrong on both counts, yenta lady. You can determine a great deal of what you need to know about a person based on one careful look. A vital evolutionary survival tool. Hearing what a person has to say 9 times out of 10 merely confirms what your eyes told you.

But many fools rise above such "primitivism" and get themselves separated from their wallets and in some cases their lives.

AJ Lynch said...

Most liberals stop learning so their minds and opinions calcify. The far left liberals I know are in their late 50's and believe everything they believed 40 years ago with one exception. They now think govt is the answer to every problem.

David said...

We have quite a few ex liberals here. I be one of them.

David said...

My Exhibit A for leaving liberalism is, and always will be, the utter failure of liberal control and of liberal values in tenure as poo-bahs of the American primary and secondary school system. Particularly in the large cities. One bad idea after another, for four decades. Then embracing some of the main elements of failure (union protection of incompetence, legalized graft, weak accountability and discipline at all levels) as if they were holy artifacts.

Has there been a more complete and consequential failure than this?

No, there has not.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

And I think Lyssalovelyreadhead's comment about liberals as "... the majority just seek to drop in, drop insults and half-truths, and never examine anything in depth and see where the ends of their positions are or why anyone thinks differently" is part of a smugness that actually reflects many of the faults of the conservative posters on this blog.

Are you really telling me that you haven't noticed the propensity of numerous liberals (Garage, Ritmo, Alpha Liberal, Allie's whatever she's calling herself right now, Love, etc.) to drop in, say something sarcastic or insulting, and then refuse to engage in a discussion or debate on the merits?

I've tried to engage them multiple times, honestly asking questions, where the lines are, why this situation is not like that, and the result is almost always moving the goalposts, insults, taking things out of context to make a strawman, or simply dodging.

One need only look at the shrill examples and the recent Cain chain of posts.

I'm not saying there's not been "shrillness" (whatever that really means- I've never understood that term), but there's been a lot of debate and disagreement and analysis on those threads. Folks are comparing to prior incidents, analyzing why and what and why or why not to believe certain things, discussing broader policy implications, etc. I've checked out a few liberal comment boards on this issue, and they're not doing anything like that.

- Lyssa

chrisnavin said...

Couldn't some of the current failures and logical inconsistencies of the modern Left (very often not liberal and rarely classically liberal in my experience) partially be the fruits of the Althouse generation?

Maybe the Jeffersonian liberals and thoughtful Althouse types carry an older flame.

If Althouse hadn't gone to law school, I still don't see her banging the hippie protest drum for the rest of her life. I could see her as a pretty accomplished NYC photographer and artist though (with thoughtful conservative undercurrents still there).

Seven Machos said...

Peter -- Daniels decided not to run because he didn't want his weird sad-happy re-marriage to his wife to be dredged up for scrutiny.

You show yourself here to know little about conservatism or conservative politics beyond a superficial level.

Larry Summers was a great example, though.

Chip S. said...

Larry Summers was a great example, though.

In fairness, I think Larry Summers was hated all over campus for a lot of reasons, and the "women & science" thing was either a flag of convenience or the final nail in the coffin. (Choose your preferred metaphor.)

If he'd had some solid base of support, he could have survived that Kinsleyan gaffe. My hunch is that he was truly hated for the millions the university had to pay b/c of the legal problems caused by his protege on the faculty.

B said...

Something that's been touched on several times in the thread already bears repeating and with a little more perspective. Up front caveat - I'm not a historian or political scientist. But I am a careful reader, observer, and listener. I'm also naturally skeptical about the value of opinion based on anecdotal evidence, as any good engineer should be, which should play in the reader's opinion of wwhat I write here.

The opposite of a liberal is not, and never has been a conservative. It's become the accepted usage, but it's incorrect. The other side of the coin from a liberal is a moderate and, simply put, it merely describes where the individual stands on distinct issues. Matt touched on that, though in different terms, and he's right.

I know people I would describe as moderate republicans, liberal republicans, liberal democrats, or moderate democrats. And each and every one of them would be considered moderate on their stance on some issues, and liberal on others. Independents, those who don't affiliate with a party, epitomize that dichotomy. But in general, in terms of numbers, people who tend to a mostly moderate view on issues do gravitate towards the modern republican party and liberals to the modern democrat party. This is just the natural attraction to the each party's platforms bu there aren't all that many people who can be pigeon holed as always liberal or always moderate on any issue.

The opposite side of the coin from a conservative is not a liberal It is a progressive. Now you're talking social engineering, not opinions on stances on distinct issues. Progressives end up usually screwing things up simply because more often than not, people who promote their vision of a better society also believe the hoi poloi will require guides and caretakers both to get there and to maintain the new status quo once they do. And who better for the job than the visionaries...according to the visionaries away

The great debate America is currently engaged in is not between progressives and conservatives though. It's between statists and Jacksonians. One group comes under the progressive umbrella because statism in America given it's history, laws, and culture is a very ambitious social engineering initiative to say the least. In vehement if disorganized opposition to any infringement on his individual rights is the Jacksonian under the conservative umbrella.

It's not going to end well. As a matter of fact,I only see it ending relatively peacefully if there's a constitutional convention over States rights versus statism and the right to vote becoming an earned priviledge rather than a chronological rite of passage.

BTW: As poor a track record as progressives have overall, they've hit the mark a few times too. A good example being the abolitionist movement of the early and mid-1800s. These people were progressive in every sense of the word - pushing a social engineering vision against the opposition of the 1800s version of the conservative happy with the status quo. (The Jacksonians were on the wrong side in that fight.) The abolitionists didn't see themselves as caretakers in the new order though - an important distinction that might have derailed abolition at the start had it been otherwise.

Seven Machos said...

People -- take the time to read B's profoundly insightful post.

B said...

I should preview my comments. I apologize for the spelling and grammatical errors, but I don't think any are serious enough to obscure meaning.

Fen said...

Most of us started out as liberal.

Then we grew up.

As evidence, look at the childish attacks of the few liberals here.

Fen said...

And the reason we (at least me) come here?

You champion freedom of speech. Its rare (no, unique) for a self-described liberal to host a blog and discuss issues without censoring and banning conservatives.

Chip S. said...

I'll second that, Fen.

Fen said...

Most liberals I know are pretty intelligent but most are really stupid. That is they lack wisdom of their own and/or they are too arrogant to listen to others.

Yup. It amazes me how enlightened and sophisticated they can be in their everyday lives, but when politics comes up they are the most bigoted ignorant intolerant hateful people I've ever known.

Like Audrey Hepburn ending an enchanting scene with "hey n*gger get off my lawn!"

Chip S. said...

Like Audrey Hepburn ending an enchanting scene with "hey n*gger get off my lawn!"

Ah, the rumored missing scene from My Fair Lady.

Only the way I heard it she says "arse" instead of "lawn".

Ralph L said...

liberal/Libertarian
Does not compute.
Perhaps you mean libertine?

Remember Althouse once opined about the inherent conservative (or individualist) nature of an artist.

F said...

My opinion of Meade's intellect just keeps going up.

wv: glect = a gingrich election

bagoh20 said...

B,

I see the divide as individual liberty versus egalitarianism.

Abolition was a rare instance when both were in alignment on an issue. Slavery was an affront to both ideas.

Modern egalitarians have lost their distaste for slavery since the modern plantation includes everyone and that makes it noble to them.

Ralph L said...

Some people think it's virtuous to be charitable with other people's money. Others don't.

Kirk Parker said...

Peter,

"[Dick Morris] ... seems more of a naked opportunist."

Dude.

I SO did not need that mental image.

ea0b6426-0b69-11e1-95f4-000bcdcb471e said...

I think the liberals might be more likely to spectate than to participate in voting or comments. Just because they (we) are not voting doesn’t mean we’re not here.

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...

A++++++++++++ for B!!!!!!!!

Chip S. said...

I think the liberals might be more likely to spectate than to participate in voting...

That new voter ID requirement is working exactly as planned!

Freder Frederson said...

But Bartlett and Frum both come across as sour and spite-ridden.

And Limbaugh and Hannity aren't.

Althouse ask why more liberals don't post on this blog by quoting her husband who implies there is no such thing as an interesting, smart liberal.

I'm sure she already knows the answer to the question (I don't think she is that ignorant). But if she didn't know the answer, reading this thread should answer it for her.

Most of the commenters here think liberals are stupid, evil and traitors. And say so regularly.

They claim that they are so much smarter than liberals and liberals ignore facts. Yet, when I point out lies that are regularly published on this site, I am ignored and the lies continue.

Freder Frederson said...

Ann Coulter's new column on the source of the sexual harassment allegations against Cain.

Except the only problem with this thesis is why on earth would the Democratic party (or the evil Daley, Obama, Alinsky gang of three) want to sabotage Cain? And even if they did, why do it now, rather than after he gets the nomination?

You would have to believe that they are both stupid and incapable of tactical thinking. Yet Coulter thinks they are evil geniuses.

AJ Lynch said...

That's a lie Freder!

Sue D'Nhym said...

with an oversexed black man chasing blondes on the road

You had a good question going until you got all Robert Byrd on us.

Fen said...

Freder: Althouse ask why more liberals don't post on this blog by quoting her husband who implies there is no such thing as an interesting, smart liberal.

He didn't imply that. You did. 1st paragraph and you've already fallen into rhetorical fallacy.


Freder: Most of the commenters here think liberals are stupid, evil and traitors. And say so regularly.

No, we think the liberals here are stupid, evil and traitors (with the exception of MadisonMan).

You're a case in point re waterboarding. I presumed that, although liberals claims to despise it, when it was *their* city, *their* family, *their* life at risk from a ticking WMD... they would beg people like me to stain our souls with blood to save them.

You were the only liberal here who stood by his principles. You said you would prefer your city and family be incinerated rather than "torture" a terrorist to save it. For that you have my respect.

But a willingness to sacrifice an American city out of idealism? Thats traitorous in my book.


They claim that they are so much smarter than liberals and liberals ignore facts.

No. In fact its largely the reverse. So much so that its become an inside joke - the "smart" liberals always feel a need to remind us how smart they are and how dumb we are. Like highschool virgins that need to boast about how good they are in bed. Real men don't need to do this, they let the ladies adverstise for them. And its much the same with the Althouse Liberals - if you have to constantly remind everyone that you have it, then you must not.

Yet, when I point out lies that are regularly published on this site, I am ignored and the lies continue.

You're ignored because you lost your credibility some time ago. I believe over the Iraq war. You wanted our troops hauled before ICC because they force marched some terrorists cross-country without the UN mandated 12 hour sleep periods.

As for Coulter's column, most of us have already agreed that this was launched from another GOP candidate. So what's your problem?

And I have to ask - haven't seen you here in awhile. Is it because you ran through your credibility again with another sock puppet?

Roger J. said...

B: well said--but of course you are an Engineer, so it probably came easily ;)

I do appreciate what I call the real liberals on this thread--not the bomb throwers. I endorse Lyssa's comments on Mr Cook who is always consistent (not that I agree with his politics, but as noted, that is irrelevant). Matt is another commenter who always posts intelligently and non-confrontationally on issues.

The blogosphere, IMO, tends to amplify the extremes of the political spectrum.

B said...

Roger J. said...The blogosphere, IMO, tends to amplify the extremes of the political spectrum.

Expressing extreme views in the company of people who not only don't hold extreme views but also don't appreciate them being shouted into their faces is not physically safe in the real world. In the blogosphere, the J types can threaten any person who doesn't agree with J's self importance with impunity for example. Not the best example because I believe he's not so much an extremist as he is a schizophrenic in dire need of professional help, but the insularity of the blogosphere protects him in the same way.

The Feder, machine, Love, Re-animated Moe Howard types here never cease reminding us of how much smarter they are even though they offer no logical or even coherent evidence. In the real world, you'd leave their company. If still they insisted on getting in your face, you'd take action to force them to leave your company.

Can't do that in the blogosphere unless you're willing to leave whatever forum they choose to infest to just them. Which I've done - forgoing visiting sites that have gone to the dogs that way.

I don't comment here much or even read most threads once I see the way they're going for that reason. Why would I want to plow through threads taken over by the vacuity of Apple Bottom Allie, the sophomoric Love's logical butchery, or the smarmy puckered ass narcissism of the Re-animated Moe Howard.

I read comments for insights into ordering my own thoughts and opinions on issues and events, not the bloviating of some vacuous bint, logic challenged dunce, prissy know it all, or extremist jackass. Life's too short, and getting shorter, to waste my time.

Freder Frederson said...

You wanted our troops hauled before ICC because they force marched some terrorists cross-country without the UN mandated 12 hour sleep periods.

As usual, you are simply lying about this. It is a sign of the lack of intelligence of many of the commenters on this site, that you consistently misrepresent my positions and invent comments I never made.

SGT Ted said...

They aren't "liberals".

They are Leftist Totalitarians.

They tell you that everytime they open their mouths.

The blather about "freedom" is handwaiving. Their actions and policy preferences say otherwise.

See: OWS.

Freder Frederson said...

And I have to ask - haven't seen you here in awhile. Is it because you ran through your credibility again with another sock puppet?

I have never used a sock puppet on this or any other site. I am commenting less because this site has become just another shrill conservative site where Althouse just propagates mostly outrageous far right talking points without thinking. Most of the sane moderates and conservatives have fled the site, and it just isn't worth arguing with the remaining right wing loons anymore.

SGT Ted said...

The abolitionists were NOT Progressives.

Progressives are the originators of Eugenics, which was responsible for sterilization programs aimed at blacks, retarded people and other socially undesireables. They were specifically against race mixing, which would weaken the White Breed.

They sought to eliminate Black people, not free them.

Progressives' ideological heritage is right there with Italian Fascism and Nazism. FDR was a fan of Mussolini for a while. It is a totalitarian idoelogy at its core. It posits that a select few, properly trained, are to be our True Rulers. And the rest of us can go pound sand if we don't want what Progressives want.

Anybody who calls themselves a Progressive should be ashamed of themselves.

AlphaLiberal said...

Alysa:

Are you really telling me that you haven't noticed the propensity of numerous liberals (Garage, Ritmo, Alpha Liberal, Allie's whatever she's calling herself right now, Love, etc.) to drop in, say something sarcastic or insulting, and then refuse to engage in a discussion or debate on the merits?

Frankly I have given up on trying to reason with conservatives. I made an effort for a long time. I used to come here to try and discuss.

But conservatives insult constantly, (yes, on occassion I return fire with same) they refuse to accept any information that doesn't come from the Murdoch media empire or Rush Limbaugh. They have their own alternate reality where, for example, cutting taxes does not increase a deficit (it does).

And the hate! Wow. Conservatives (most!) just ooze hatred towards so many elements of American society I am convinced it's a majority. They even hate voting rights, as we see across the country.

So I try to shake them up a little and get them to think independently and confront some of the myths they repeat (sometimes comes off as insults). But they won't. They hate me because I am a liberal.

This is a pretty dangerous trend for our democracy, especailly as they do all this while tearing down the democratic institutions and practices in favor of some sort of new, unrestrained corporate feudalism that leads to lower standard of living for the majority.

And Althouse? Meh. She does her mind reading schtick, assigns motives to other people she never met and blissfully ignores all of the above. She quotes Drudge and Limbaugh without caring for their long record of falsehoods. Not interesting.

I just feel bad that I have contributed so much to the traffic on her blog.

So long...

AlphaLiberal said...

Oh, and Meade's statement in the original post is no more than nonsense.

Peter Hoh said...

Sgt Ted, try chewing on this:

historian Darryl Hart argues that "the evangelical temperament is inherently progressive."

Link.

Roger J. said...

An anecdote, Alpha: back in the days of the Rumsfeld era, you posited that Rick Shinseki had been fired as Army COS because he disagreed with Rummy--I pointed you to tenures of the Army COS (about four years) and you did your homework and discovered, that, in fact, Rick Shinseki was not fired, had served a full term as army COS, and retired. And you acknowledged that--I respected you for that.

So if you do want depart, do so, and live long and prosper.

SGT Ted said...

Frankly I have given up on trying to reason with conservatives.

Haha like you ever started in the first place.

Calling us racistsexisthomophobes or trying to sell us ideas that have repeatedly failed isn't called "reason".

Roger J. said...

We can debate opinions, but facts are another matter.

SGT Ted said...

Alphas post is full of the usual strawman leftwing Alinsky political caricatures of conservatives as he whines about no one listening to his attempt "reasoning".

Dave said...

Liberals have moved away from your blog as you have become far more reliably conservative - and far less "cruelly neutral"...

This simply isn't the same blog it was 3 or 4 years ago. I still check it on a regular basis, but I can usually predict what I will see - a reliably conservative voice buttressed with a few pop culture references.

Robert Cook said...

"Interesting, smart liberals are called...conservatives."

Ha! So, by definition, "liberals," as such, can never be smart or correct, because if they are, they're really "conservatives," and if they're dull and stupid...they must be "liberals!"

Talk about special pleading, (or, having one's cake and eating it)!

TosaGuy said...

In my experience, I can hold great and interesting debates with liberals who don't live in conformist liberal enclaves like Madison. They have actually had to consider other points of view and it makes them better and more considerate debaters.

Generally, a conformist enclave liberal, because everyone around them confirms what they say, can be reduced to name-calling and insult-tossing in about 3 minutes if not sooner.

prairie wind said...

In fact I don't read ANY liberal blogs because I don't need to. I know the issues and I know the arguments because they are what I largely believe myself. I read conservative thinkers to protect my own objectivity, to expose my mind to people who have life experience different from my own and to seek out flaws in my own thinking and assumptions. It is crippling easy to live in an intellectual echo chamber on the Internet and the airwaves. It's hugely seductive to be always right, always the good guy, always the one with the wisdom, but it's an utter distortion.

Bingo. That's why I listen to NPR.

DADvocate said...

And the hate! Wow. Conservatives (most!) just ooze hatred towards so many elements of American society I am convinced it's a majority. They even hate voting rights, as we see across the country.

Another predictable meme, Chapter 4, page 15, section 1.01b, paragrahp 666. Generally used by liberals to justify their own hate and desire to have absolute control via government.

Allie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
prairie wind said...

Some people think it's virtuous to be charitable with other people's money.

Our church held an event for kids, to talk about hunger. They handed out a quiz, asking true/false questions about poverty levels, the number of people or children in poverty and so on. One true/false question was something like: Most Americans think the federal government shouldn't help those in poverty. The answer, as you've already guessed, was True. It was a dishonest question, of course. Most Americans think the federal government should help those in poverty though we differ on the best way to do that. I think the government could help best by reducing taxes, reducing the number of regulations, and reducing spending. Among other things. Churches are full of people who don't realize that Christ's message was a personal one. YOU should feed the hungry. He doesn't tell us to force others to do that.

Another truth rarely spoken is that the poorest person in America is rich beyond imagining in most other areas of the world.

prairie wind said...

Most of the commenters here think liberals are stupid, evil and traitors.

Can't speak for others but I will say that I don't think liberals are, in general, evil. Instead, their lazy thinking increases the possibility of evil.

Chip S. said...

AlphaLiberal says this about conservatives:

They even hate voting rights, as we see across the country.

as part of his explanation of why he's given up trying to "reason with" them.

Then RobertCook chimes in to demonstrate his inability to distinguish between the AND and OR logical operations with this:

Ha! So, by definition, "liberals," as such, can never be smart or correct, because if they are, they're really "conservatives,"

And still they wonder why they get called "stupid" and "uninteresting".

Allie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

A few years ago, I was trying to figure out whether I was conservative or very conservative when filling out an online profile. So I asked my friend I've known for decades, and he said I was a classical liberal.

Those who now call themselves liberal really aren't. Liberal now means leftist.

Robert Cook said...

"Then RobertCook chimes in to demonstrate his inability to distinguish between the AND and OR logical operations with this:

"Ha! So, by definition, 'liberals,' as such, can never be smart or correct, because if they are, they're really 'conservatives,'


Uh...what? So few words, so little sense.

Amartel said...

Conservatives hate that everyone has the right to vote in America, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or nationality.
Conservatives hate that sometimes Super Patriots forget whether they've already voted in an election, an understandable mistake especially if you're dead, and cast a "just in case" ballot or ten. Hey, these things happen, but hateful conservatives have to make a "big deal" about it and place hateful onerous burdens on Super Patriots, like making them show id, and sneakily, hatefully cross-checking voter registrations and death records. BOOOOOOO. Hateful hatey mchaterson.

Other things that Conservatives hate:
Fairness
Puppies, chicks, browns, fags, workers, and other pets
Cheese
Free shit
Other Countries

Goodbye, cruel blog.

Chip S. said...

Uh...what? So few words, so little sense.

Cook, you're a moron, pure and--most certainly--simple.

Draw a fucking Venn diagram of these 4 sets: smart people, interesting people, liberals, and conservatives.

Meade's proposition (a joke, btw, for you humor-impaired dolts taking offense at it) is this: The intersection of "smart," "interesting," and "liberal" is empty. That does not mean that the intersection of "smart" and "liberal" or "interesting" and "liberal" is empty.

Got it now, wonderboy?

damikesc said...

but then her posts are so ambiguous , it's hard to tell where she in actuality does stand on the issue.

So, Allie admitted she is unable to comprehend what she reads.

Saying that she supports gay marriage, for most people, would remove ambiguity.

And the hate! Wow. Conservatives (most!) just ooze hatred towards so many elements of American society I am convinced it's a majority. They even hate voting rights, as we see across the country.

Know who AL hates?

Straw men.

He slays them constantly around these parts.

They hate me because I am a liberal.

And NOT because you tend to come across as a jackass?

This is a pretty dangerous trend for our democracy, especailly as they do all this while tearing down the democratic institutions and practices in favor of some sort of new, unrestrained corporate feudalism that leads to lower standard of living for the majority.

Conservatives just unleash mob violence when they don't get their way? Conservative pols just run away from the state when they don't like the results of a vote? Conservatives oppose requiring some proof of ID when you vote because some people might lie about having not voted twice?

Man, we ARE evil...

Except the only problem with this thesis is why on earth would the Democratic party (or the evil Daley, Obama, Alinsky gang of three) want to sabotage Cain?

Because Romney is markedly more beatable. Cain inspires passion in his supporters. Romney really doesn't.

You would have to believe that they are both stupid and incapable of tactical thinking. Yet Coulter thinks they are evil geniuses.

Shall we go into the vast array of Truthers that populated the Democratic Party in the 2000's?

Most of the commenters here think liberals are stupid, evil and traitors. And say so regularly.

I don't see them called traitors often. Stupid is pretty obvious. Evil? Yeah, a lot of what you support is evil because it saddles MY kids with massive debt to fund your idiotic desires.

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

"They are Leftist Totalitarians.

They tell you that everytime they open their mouths.

The blather about "freedom" is handwaiving. Their actions and policy preferences say otherwise.

See: OWS.
"

See now, that is my thought too.

I don't understand why liberals support OWS. At what point does OWS ideology intersect with liberal ideology? I don't see how it does. Is liberalism anti-business? Has it ever been? Is liberalism inherently pro-government, pro-dole, anti-individualist? Has it ever been? "Liberal" in the Wide World means something more near individual freedom and independence and, yes, free markets. It also means something near the universality of human experience and *value* instead of this multi-culti every-one-is-different thing.

It used to be about tolerance and "I may hate what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," but now it is "offensive speech isn't free speech."

Robert Cook said...

"Meade's proposition (a joke, btw, for you humor-impaired dolts taking offense at it)...."

Humor impaired? Didn't you catch my "Ha!" that preceded my remark? I'm amused more often than not when I'm here; seems to me you're the one who's a little cross, Chips!

wildswan said...

I tried to get my liberal brother to read one conservative or libertarian blog for one week. Althouse or Instapundit. But he couldn't keep it up because the facts being interpreted are so different from the facts he thinks about. For instance, he was unaware of the many problems at Occupy City X; he hardly knew about Solyndra; The "Fast and the Furious" gunwalker deal hardly impinged on his consciousness and he is not aware of the pension/ debt overhang as a real problem. He drinks in what the WaPo and PBS-TV say on weekdays and learns more from the NYT on Sundays - he thinks. So he couldn't follow what the blogs were discussing - it wasn't interesting or relevant, he felt. He and I have exactly the same principles - Catholic liberals of the Sixties who got arrested in the Seventies and Eighties for pro-life. Now he supports Obama and I most certainly do not - because our facts are different.

Francisco D said...

Freder: "As usual, you are simply lying about this. It is a sign of the lack of intelligence of many of the commenters on this site."

Uh no. That would be a sign of anti-social personality disorder. You know. Like Bill and Hillary.

Stupidity (ie., lack of intelligence) is usually easier to identify. Case in point ....

roesch/voltaire said...

This is indeed a telling statement from B on the state of his conservative mind: vote becoming an earned priviledge rather than a chronological rite of passage--
no regard for what has been established in the constitution or its amendments.

Freeman Hunt said...

Generally, a conformist enclave liberal, because everyone around them confirms what they say, can be reduced to name-calling and insult-tossing in about 3 minutes if not sooner.

Or crying. I've had two who cried.

Awkward.

Synova said...

I don't know what that has to do with the conservative mind, RV. It's not clear if B was suggesting that voting needed to become an earned privilege (thought it certainly wasn't a mere chronological rite of passage at its inception), but I'm quite certain that it's not at all a particular "conservative" viewpoint either way.

Granted, conservatives are less likely to be all about giving awards out for participation than progressives seem to be, even as yet another tolerant lefty spouts the strange "offensive speech isn't free speech" brilliance. The left is every bit as likely to fuss about stupid people who watch FOX being allowed to vote as a righty is to wax poetic over Starship Troopers.

I've been wondering why liberals have been so supportive of OWS when almost none of the OWS ideas align to liberal values. I think it's the "oh isn't that adorable" aspect of political participation for it's own sake. Yes, it's true, conservatives aren't likely to think that there is great value in participation for it's own sake. Liberals do seem to do that. I recall... it may have been Naomi Wolf, but it was some liberal popular writer in any case, telling young people to get involved... it didn't matter what they thought about anything, the value was in getting involved.

That's just silly. It's a pat on the head. It's an award for participation.

Synova said...

"For those of you conservatives that say she is a liberal or resembles a liberal, no I don't see it. Maybe concerning same sex marriage or few other issues she seems to break out of the rightosphere for a moment, but then her posts are so ambiguous , it's hard to tell where she in actuality does stand on the issue."

She doesn't hate on conservatives and wasn't anti-Iraq war or a BDS sufferer. But yes, liberal. Quite.

And we never could get her to change her mind about 10 commandment displays at court houses either.

rcommal said...

And we never could get her to change her mind about 10 commandment displays at court houses either. Not clear on how much disagreement there was on that one or at least to what degree, and therefore don't get the "we never could get her..." construction. Also, in what ways, specifically, and to what degree, is Althouse "quite liberal" that you, Synova, are not?

Synova said...

Ah, that 10 commandment thing was sort of tongue in cheek. It's a sort of a stereotypical conservative marker, which is why I picked it, even though in real life there's disagreement.

As for how Althouse is liberal in ways I'm not... I think that's the "conservatives are classical liberals" thing, no? (I think I'm libertarian in ways she's not, which isn't the same thing.) I know that lately there have been moments when I've been surprised at something that actually is clearly conservative, because I still don't expect Althouse to express those opinions.

Many of us (for some non-specific value of "us") are quite liberal in a whole lot of ways, but the label itself seems to have a particular set of markers, all of which I fail. That those are progressive markers, and often anti-liberty, anti-individualist, anti-liberal things, is just another way that our language is irredeemably convoluted.

But seriously... she voted for Obama. I haven't crabbed about that too much, but I don't know how someone who is conservative could have been comfortable with his ideas and ideology, even the smoothed out "I think he really means this" version of them. Moderate, maybe.

rcommal said...

As for how Althouse is liberal in ways I'm not... I think that's the "conservatives are classical liberals" thing, no?

No. No, it isn't, and no, that wasn't the point.

Thank you for responding to my comment, Synova. I sincerely appreciate that, even though you neither addressed "specifically" (with the exception of voting for Obama in 2008 [which, for the record, I didn't]) nor "to what degree."

I accept that the response was as most as it could be. I guess.