The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
I don't even remember which talk show it was, but yesterday I heard this exchange:
Host (gross paraphrase): There have been many murders, rapes and robberies at the Occupy demonstrations and there have never been any at the Tea Party events.
Liberal Caller (darned close paraphrase): Well, sure, that's because everybody at Tea Party events is armed.
If this same caller were having a conversation about gun control, he would ridicule the fact-based opinion that when law-abiding citizens are armed, there is less crime.
Before I draw the conclusion that liberals are uniquely biased, I'd like to know if anyone can cite an instance of similar blindness in conservatives? I suspect this is a human, rather than uniquely liberal failing, and that I just can't get around my own bias. Surely, someone else out there can?
- Comment (75)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
HVTs
Edward Smith:
Which is why I want to punch John McCain in the nose, for picking a running mate who faced off a Featherweight like Katie Couric like a deer in the headlights.
You do gotta be this tall to ride the ride, no matter how much you agree with me, or even just send a thrill up my leg.
You seem to have conceded that liberal journos get to pick the yardstick with which we shall always measure height.
I think our worst blindness is always letting the left define everything and control the conversation. As I mentioned in another post how long are we going to have the same argument about gun control? Also really beware when you agree with a leftist, you are probably wrong.
May '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
PracticalMary
You seem to have conceded that liberal journos get to pick the yardstick with which we shall always measure height.
I think our worst blindness is always letting the left define everything and control the conversation. As I mentioned in another post how long are we going to have the same argument about gun control? Also really beware when you agree with a leftist, you are probably wrong. · 34 minutes ago
I'll get a little stroppy.
I've ready Commenters elsewhere who seem to think that you can respond to the Liberal media by sticking their fingers in their ears and say "Nah, nah. nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you."
The media has to be dealt with. Competently. By people who have studied the game films. Like Paul Ryan, for instance.
And if your favorite candidate won't do that, they have deliberately neglected to learn a requisite and crucial skill. They are not qualified to run for office. You vote is spilt seed, seed cast on the road bed - with the usual and predictable productive results.
I correspond with someone who loves Barry Goldwater, but has admits the man marginalized himself. Because he did.
Jun '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Maggie Somavilla
While Japan seems to be an example of a non-Western country on whom the U.S. successfully imposed democracy, the more I learn, the more I am convinced that it is very unlikely that a representative republic such as ours (was?) could be achieved in a society that lacked our unique cultural heritage.
I have to disagree. The key factor seems to be whether or not a people have a sense of their own nationhood. The Japanese were, and continue to be to this day, a uniquely homogeneous people with a long cultural history of what it means to be Japanese.
Contrast the Japanese experience with Africa and the Middle East where people tend to be tribal in their attitudes. Iraq will be the acid test. Can the Iraqi people forge a national identity?
The above contrast also makes something else abundantly clear. Diversity and multiculturalism are a fool's gambit. The combination can only be divisive (one might even suppose this is the purpose!). If it's such a good idea, why isn't the former Yugoslavia still on the map?
Sep '11
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
~Paules
Maggie Somavilla
I have to disagree. The key factor seems to be whether or not a people have a sense of their own nationhood. The Japanese were, and continue to be to this day, a uniquely homogeneous people with a long cultural history of what it means to be Japanese.
Contrast the Japanese experience with Africa and the Middle East where people tend to be tribal in their attitudes. Iraq will be the acid test. Can the Iraqi people forge a national identity?
The above contrast also makes something else abundantly clear. Diversity and multiculturalism are a fool's gambit. The combination can only be divisive (one might even suppose thisisthe purpose!). If it's such a good idea, why isn't the former Yugoslavia still on the map? · 18 minutes ago
Good point and no doubt goes a long way toward explaining what happened to us.
Oct '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Edward Smith
The media has to be dealt with. Competently. By people who have studied the game films.
And if your favorite candidate won't do that, they have deliberately neglected to learn a requisite and crucial skill. They are not qualified to run for office.
First, it was one bad interview and then a cavalcade of unearned invective, filled with misogynist, anti-Christian hate for Palin and her children. She managed to become Governor while confronting entrenched interests without showing herself to be incompetent in media relations. So your critique demonstrates my second point: Dealing with journos competently does not man accepting their major premises at face value. Since your man Barry G got marginalized, the Republicans have put forward exactly one Conservative nominee, Reagan, who won two terms--one from an incumbent. Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, Romney--not a conservative among them. Set Nixon aside as a psychodrama and Romney aside since we can't predict the future. The others were "competent" concerning liberal journo sensitivities. Where has this gotten us as a nation? The Republicans as a party? Conservatism as an organizing principle for the Republic? When journos measure, conservatives never measure up.
May '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
HVTs
Does the opponent in a boxing match decide your score? No, the judges do. And the fans do. You go into into an interview like your are going into the boxing ring. The journalists are the opponent. They do not set the standard. The voters decide whether or not you are competent. Does Paul Ryan persuade the journalists he meets with? Does he persuade Debbie Wasserman Schultz? No, the audience sees how calm he is, and charming, and sides with him. Unless of course they were dead set against him to begin with, in which case he is not even trying to persuade them.
Reagan won two elections because he understood who his audience was. And it was not the press. He did not give a rats ass about the New York Times. But he made damned shimmy to take the paper seriously enough to figure out how to beat them.
Maybe that's the mistake some Conservative make: not knowing who the audience is, not knowing who the enemy is, and not learning enough about the enemy to beat them and look good in front of the audience.
BTW, just how many interviews was Palin going to get?
Jul '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Interestingly enough, if you look closely and honestly, many of the comments here are examples of such "blindness." Examples:
Is it not "blindness" to label something "wrong" because you don't like it?
Has anyone ever seriously made the the argument that lower taxes always result in the same or greater revenue, regardless of where you are on the curve? This has always been a straw-man.
Simply thinking that conservatives are more free of such blindness than liberals IS a blind-spot. I guarantee liberals think the very same thing, and can point to many, many examples. This is a human failing, not an ideological one. However as far as ideologies go, liberalism is, by definition far more flawed, and in much more fundamental ways than conservatism. I believe we are far better-off focusing on that fact than on trying to prove conservatives are somehow objectively better people.
Oct '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Edward Smith:
HVTs: Does the opponent in a boxing match decide your score?
Argument by analogy has limitations. The boxing ring in your analogy has a significant difference from the one London Olympians are swinging in right now. To align with your analogy, the boxer opposing you would have the discretion to decide which punches the judges get to see and therefore score. You think that might impact the judges’ final tally?
I’ve got nothing but respect and admiration for Congressman Ryan, to include his demeanor during interviews. I don’t think, however, that unless you have precisely his felicity with said interviews there’s no hope for you. I also presume he has flubbed a few interview questions along the way. So, again, the argument by analogy breaks down. I predict that should Ryan get on a Presidential ticket you will see a dramatic shift in how the MSM approaches him and the selectivity with which they release interview clips.
We seem to be in heated agreement concerning Reagan. He didn't care what the New York Times thought and therefore was the most effective and successful Republican in at least two generations.
May '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
HVTs:
Paul Ryan is the best example. But there are probably others. Their day in the sun has not happened yet, or is overshadowed now in my mind by seeing more Ryan than most other people.
So, your opponent leans this way and that to highlight which punches the judges see? And you are not aware of this? Of course you are. You play the same game back at them. And the judges, one hopes (sometimes against hope, I freely acknowledge - c.f., the California voter) are also aware of this and do their best to counter both of your wily tactics.
Ryan would get "The Treatment" were he to rise in prominence? He is not aware of this? I doubt it. And I do not doubt he has worked out strategems come the day.
If you are in the game, like being in the game, and want to stay in and succeed in playing the game, you try and foresee what your enemies will do.
Reagan did not care what The New York Times though but he did care about what the paper could do.
The Liberal Press is an Enemy. And this is a War. Fight it competently.
May '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
HVTs
Katie O
Ah, a compromise to better distribute the death...got it. Sorry to misrepresent.
Katie - you are certainly correct about the logical inconsistency of being against killing unborn children BUT ... Here's a hypothetical: If you had it in your power to do so, would you really forgo a ban on partial birth abortion if it included an escape clause for rape and incest? Wouldn't you hungrily take that deal and continue to strive for an end to all abortion in the future?
To compare abortion with an earlier holocaust, if only one Nazi death camp could have been liberated before its actual liberation by allied troops would you have rejected it because other camps remained active?
Absolutism has a near perfect record of self-defeat. · 8 hours ago
No, I would not forgo the hypothetical partial birth abortion ban. I would in no way have to compromise my position that all abortion is wrong in order to support that ban. This is obviously different from those who's position is that say abortion is wrong, unless the child is a product of rape or incest. In those cases they want abortion to be legal.
May '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
To expand and improve on your analogy with the holocaust HVTs:
The partial birth abortion ban supporter would be like your liberators of one death camp, doing what they can now, and fighting on to liberate the rest in future.
The "abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest" group would be better compared to those who would say...We can never fully eradicate genocide. The Jews are an infinitesimal proportion of the world's population. So, you Nazis go ahead and keep your death camps. But it is evil to use them on anyone but Jews.
Edited on July 30, 2012 at 12:22amJul '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Edward Smith & HVT seem to be yet another example of saying the same thing in different ways and not willing to accept the significance of the other point. As I see it, both make serious points.
Combat is combat. Doesn't matter whether in war, special ops, ideology, sociology, or politics. First rule is to TRY to pick your ground to fight on. That comes out as controlling the terms of the debate. Second rule is that the enemy doesn't always GO to your ground, making you have to assault HIS position. In Palin's case, I don't fault her for a mistake, I fault a grossly incompetent McCain staff who (1) didn't prepare her very well, and (2) saw no good way to fight it. A blitz of Obama and Biden gaffe's would have been one way to be helpful, especially setting it up as a campaign ad. But McCain WAS too interested in appeasing the enemy, not defeating him. It only follows his career in the senate.
To win at combat, EVERYONE who has BEEN in combat will tell you that you have to have the WILL to win. No exceptions.
Edited on July 29, 2012 at 10:56pmJul '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Check the recent Scott Brown ad in Massachusetts. There is how to defeat the enemy with their own weapons. NYT not-withstanding, everyone knows that's a killer ad! ?Remember anything even closely resembling that from McCain.
Palin did her part - she rallied the base, which was truly on the outs with the senator. McCain flubbed it. Sad to see a fighter pilot who has forgotten what he once knew in fighter pilot mindset.
Edited on July 29, 2012 at 11:06pmMay '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Devereaux,
I concede your point. I see Palin as someone who was moved up to the Big Leagues too soon, by people who were not truly interested in seeing themselves, much less her, win. She made mistakes (starting with saying yes to McCain) because of a lack of experience on the national stage that ensured she is essentially out of politics - at an age when she should be moving up the ranks.
To me, part of having the will to win means being able to say no to, pass over or even fire people you like and may even admire, because they are just not up to the job.
And being able to say so to their face, respectfully.
I like being Loyal. But I like winning better. And you can do both, if you are smart.
Edited on July 29, 2012 at 11:31pmOct '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Katie O:
The "abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest" group would be better compared to those who would say...We can never fully eradicate genocide. The Jews are an infinitesimal proportion of the world's population. So, you Nazis go ahead and keep your death camps. But it is evil to use them on anyone but Jews.
Gross and stupid IMO.
I'll never know the answer to the following question but I think it's germane. What does it feel like to carry to term the child forced upon you by rape?
In the Balkans just 15-20 years ago, Muslim girls were repeatedly raped precisely because once pregnant they would be shunned by Muslim men and not produce Muslim babies. Russian soldiers raped German women in 1945 in numbers estimated in six figures. It's an ugly and complicated world. You have logic on your side. I think we have much in common. But am I qualified to say that in all cases for all women--always--they shouldn't have access to an abortifacient or an abortion procedure that's legal and as safe as our standards of medical care can provide? No.
Oct '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Katie - what I couldn't fit but needs to be added ...
The problem with your use of the Death Camp analogy is that we are talking about individual women, for whom personal physical autonomy is at least a reasonable assertion if not an inherent human right. The Nazis never, ever had a moral right to decide who lives and who dies among European Jews or any other group they systematically persecuted. I'm not concluding all women can morally abort at will whenever they want. I'm simply repeating what I said in a different context earlier in this thread: argument by analogy has limitations and, in my view, you've hit a Jersey barrier in that what the Nazis did was always and unequivocally wrong.
May '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
If it is okay, I'll quote myself from another Thread:
Winston Churchill, another admirable figure in history, initiated the Gallipoli Campaign in 1916. It was based on a sound idea, but terrain and the hitherto unknown military genius of Kamal Attaturk turned it into a humiliating disaster for the British.
Churchill was back in Parliament in the 1930's, a Back Bencher. He spent 14 years in political exile.
Sarah Palin accepted John McCain's offer to be his running mate in 2008. Her best efforts were impressive, but could not begin to hope to turn around a campaign that was doomed from the start by its architects, and by the candidate himself.
It has only been 4 years. George W. Bush willingly entered into political exile and has not yet re-emerged. It may be that Sarah Palin re-emerges from her political exile in the next few years. She chose not to in 2011.
We need to win the 2012 Campaign. Let those in exile remain so until circumstances suggest they re-emerge. Let's focus on who's running this year's campaign, and win.
Jul '12
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
My husband has an interesting take on a "woman's right to choose." He says you only get to choose once...no do overs. So, if you've chosen to have sex, you must accept the consequences. If your right to choose was taken from you (as in rape or incest), you still have a choice to make and that may be to abort. Seems to avoid the emotional argument about fetuses/babies/innocents.
May '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
HVTs
I'll never know the answer to the following question but I think it's germane. What does it feel like to carry to term the child forced upon you by rape?.... am I qualified to say that in all cases for all women--always--they shouldn't have access to an abortifacient or an abortion procedure that's legal and as safe as our standards of medical care can provide? No. · 17 hours ago
I assume you'll also never know what the pain and shame forced on an islamist father whose daughter is raped feels like. But, I'll bet you think yourself qualified to say that in all cases for all women--always-- honor killing should not be an option.
May '10
Re: The Closed Liberal (?) Mind
Babci
My husband has an interesting take on a "woman's right to choose." He says you only get to choose once...no do overs. So, if you've chosen to have sex, you must accept the consequences. If your right to choose was taken from you (as in rape or incest), you still have a choice to make and that may be to abort. Seems to avoid the emotional argument about fetuses/babies/innocents.
12 hours ago
By the rules your husband created, is the mother's time for choosing limited to the child of rape's time in the womb? Or may she choose to kill him/her when she is 7 weeks old? 7 years? 27? Why?
His rules do nothing to avoid rational arguments about fetuses/babies/innocents.