The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie.
So begins a straight-forward commentary “The Big White Lie,†by a novelist named Andrew Klavan. A conservative born in New York and currently living in California, Klavan discusses truth, the idea of calling a thing by its name, and liberalism’s aversion to it.
Over the years, truth telling has become something “polite†people don’t do in public. By way of example, Klavan begins:
The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
First, I’m glad Klavan recognized Toni Morrison as a superior writer to Alice “The Color Purple†Walker. I’ve always thought so, though Walker is probably more well known. As the author of one of my favorite books of all time, Song of Solomon, Morrison studied, understands, and appreciates the works of good writers, regardless of race. Her style has been compared to William Faulkner’s, one of America’s great southern writers.
With a decreasing emphasis on studying the Western canon, too many people have lost the ability to understand what is good and what is crap. With politically correct pabulum flowing through the streets like raw sewage, we’re knee-deep in crap, and people from the highest office to the lowest rung are afraid to call it crap.
But I digress. As Klavan acknowledges, it is politically incorrect to tell the truth. To call abortion murder is to be an extremist who wants to send women back to the Victorian era. Personal responsibility, accountability, and a desire to speak out for and protect the unborn limit a woman’s “rights,” I guess. For anyone to say that out-of-control black crime and illegitimacy rates are destroying the black community and that the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those committing the crimes and having babies by different men is to be self-hating if you’re black and a racist if you’re white.
The political left depends on suppressing the truth or relegating it to the back room. Klavan writes:
This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.
I’m struck by the gradual, 40-year shift from rebelling against “Victorian†middle class morality in the 1960s, where people encouraged others to speak their minds and stand up to authority, to the present descent into unpalatable PC conformity, where speech codes are alive and thriving in government agencies, businesses, and on college campuses across the country. An innocuous but stupid comment can cost someone his job and reputation. What happened? Here’s my theory:
As this country has become more racially and culturally diverse, telling the truth about racial and cultural differences has become off-limits. At the same time, liberals want to apply separate standards to these diverse groups based on those differences. For example, you can’t talk about personal responsibility in the context of underachievement among black students, or you’re a racist. Yet, so-called affirmative action — a government-mandated racial classification system — exists to compensate for those differences (and not to combat racism, as some people believe). But to be PC is to pretend racial disparities like underachievement or high crime rates are caused by white racism instead of by individuals and something lacking within the subculture itself, and to say otherwise is taboo.
Additionally, we’re encouraged to “celebrate diversity†and embrace differences, but only the good stuff. We can’t talk about or even acknowledge the bad without being called nasty names. “Honest†dialogues aren’t really honest all. They’re one-sided victimhood rallies.
Do you see what I’m getting at? We all know what’s going on, but we’re discouraged from saying it out loud. As Klavan writes, “No one wants to be condemned as a brute.†No one wants to be called a racist. No one wants to be called a woman-hater or a self-hater. But that’s what awaits you when you dare look a thing in the face and call it by its name.
I decided years ago that I would try to wash away as much PC sewage as I could. I’ve spent the subsequent years trying not to step in it again. Sometimes it’s difficult, because the pressure to conform can be overwhelming. Lying to people certainly doesn’t help them, and I’d rather be right than liked.
Agree or disagree? Why?
(Photo credit: Boundless)
Update: Power Line’s Scott Johnson linked to this post (Thanks!) and routes readers to Johnny Carson’s classic copper clapper caper skit. Check out the video. A little comic relief is needed in this pitifully PC period. 
Update II: Military man “Dadmanly” has written what I consider a must-read post in response to Klavan’s column. I met the milblogger at last year’s Milblog Conference, which I live-blogged. Can’t attend this year’s conference. 
I’m in sunny South Carolina to attend a mini family reunion and celebrate my 40th birthday (May 5).
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 95 comments }
Of course white lies are standard.
Since socialist liberalism (the nanny State) wishes to have an all-powerful bureaucracy take care of all of us, as if we were all children, and since there is NO EVIDENCE that a benevolent State has ever existed, and since there is overwhelming evidence that such States always descend into total evil and depravity, white lies are required.
The most recent, of course, is President Mobotu of Zimbabwe. A formerly prosperous country, Zimbabwe has descended into utter anarchy and terror.
Benevolent dictators always turn into tyrants. Even Plato knew that. So much for philosophy.
All of the evidence points to individual responsibility leading to the greatest good for the greatest number. So this evidence must be concealed.
So white lies must be standard.
The truth hurts but it also brings freedom to those who are willing to accept it.
I agree with you. I think that conservatives need to speak up, in the office, in school, in the grocery store, it the neighborhood barbecue, wherever. I decided recently that when I hear something I disagree with, I’m going to express my perspective and be prepared to back up my argument. If it’s a situation where I don’t wish to get into an argument, I’ll just say, “I completely disagree with you on that, but we don’t need to discuss it.” At the very least, I’ve sent a message that I’m not part of the groupthink.
In our society there are weak people and strong people. Of course, this is relative since all of us feel weaker or stronger in certain situations. But my point is that if we speak out strongly, then those who share our views but who perhaps are too “weak” to say so will be emboldened by our act of courage. Also, some people have weaker minds than others, and are confused and looking for someone to follow. They don’t trust their own opinions, and this group is the most vulnerable to being swayed by what appears to be a majority opinion. When we keep silent out of politeness or unwillingness to engage in arguments, it gives greater voice to libs. The end result is that the weaker people end up following the crowd, because we’ve let the crowd become liberal.
It’s an upward battle when the media or those in television and film are leftist because they wield so much control. It’s hard but we have to fight back. We have no choice.
I agree.
As a parent I am working very hard at teaching values and I am sick and tired of being contradicted in the all aspects of the media.
I am saddened that everything is politically correct, and watch the Al Sharpton’s try and explain why Imus was wrong, and they are not. It is so amazing that they don’t watch/or at least write down what they previously stated. So that they can stay on the view that they originally professed.
I am in total agreement with the fact that I don’t have to lie, and it is okay to be conservative and American.
Too bad the MSM doesn’t hold the Left accountable to their contradictions.
Agree.
This goes along with the principle that states that conservatives think, while liberals feel. Thinking, with specific, hard, fixed facts, is infinitely better than the sloppy shifting reality of feelings. And it’s the centerless, rudderless feelings bit that leads one to the slippery slope and makes the lying so easy.
LaShawn, you have just written one of the best essays on this subject I’ve ever read. Coincidentally, Daily Kos devoted a blog to what they call “framing” early yesterday as a result of their revulsion with the wording of the Supreme Court ruling on Partial Birth Abortion (a procedure they refer to as nonexistent). This one really has them in a box. They’re really upset that people have been made aware of the actual procedure and the terminology used to describe it. For example, they were outraged at the wording of the ruling which referred to “abortion doctors” instead of just calling them doctors or ob-gyns. Of course, the word “murder” never crossed their lips.
Recently my Bible study group digressed from the study a bit and starting discussing the plight of illegal immigrants. It took all my nerve, but I stated my position against amnesty for illegals. It was difficult for me to do being this was a group of really good, caring women (not to mention our pastor’s wife), but I thought if ever there was a time for being honest with myself and others, this is it. They didn’t throw me out of the group (lol) and I felt better about myself afterwards.
AGREED.
This is a fine piece of clear writing, La Shawn, both yours and the quoted source.
Truth, absolute and glorious, is not dead.
A bit battered, perhaps, she is still the strong tower that the righteous can count on for as it is written and as you know, God cannot tell a lie.
The Deceiver first had them proclaim that God was dead, short trip to the proclamation that truth was relative, both are one and the same.
Take it to the world, La Shawn, God’s got your back.
“God is dead.” –Nietzsche
“Nietzsche died in 1900.” –God
This is the same thing atheists say about religious people.
Got to say one more thing, a reminder:
“We hold these truths to be self evident…
“This is the same thing atheists say about religious people.”
Comment by Shade — 04.24.07 @ 10:32 am
Then you must study the subject until you can decipher which one is the liar and which is telling the truth.
Absolutely.
Shade, are you sure you posted that in the right thread?
Yay! Yay! Yay! Tell it, LaShawn! The way I like to say it is, “the emperor has no clothes” - that is when you stand up to groupthink and exclaim that he is actually naked!
Excellent, La Shawn! You wrote the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, and left me with nothing to add.
Have you yet heard from NBC or CBS about replacing any of their troubled jocks?
I agree. And I believe that all these lies result in a lot of liberals (at least in my acquaintance) who are very confused about why the world never works the way they think it should. For example, feminists who deny that men and women are different and then can’t understand why their marriages aren’t working.
Completely agree.
We were caught up in “outcome based education” when Wilder was governor in Virginia. Dumb me, I couldn’t grasp the concept. Finally, a liberal teacher on the staff spelled it out idiot style to my blinking eyes. You get the kid to 18 and graduate him. Whatever he has learned is the outcome of his education. If you think he did a good job considering who he was and what he was willing to put into it……give him an “A”.
Liberals create these little phrases and rules so they can create a mystique which they can then spend spouting and protecting. They never, ever let you define the premise or the vocabulary, because that would necessarily blow a hole in the mystique. It is all about mystique and only the elite oligarchy of like minded savants dare handle the mystique. Everyone else is an unwashed bigot, and more so if they dare disagree.
Groucho Marx: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/et.al: “Are you going to believe me or your common sense?”
I want to add my agreement, dittoes, and kudos in a way that’s fresh and interesting to read…but I think it’s all been said!
I get _really_ annoyed by people who can’t seem to answer questions - apparently because a simple yes or no is too black or white for them.
I’d rather view things as black and white as possible, and let God sort out the grays. One of my pet peeves is the court system. Since libs deny the existence of God and an afterlife, they feel that perfect justice has to be rendered by our courts. Hence a person who commits a crime isn’t really evil but just a victim of circumstances that cause him to behave in socially unacceptable ways. We shouldn’t _punish_ him…just send him to his room - or prison - for a time out. Death penalty??? OH no!!! life is all we have…death is the end…we _can’t_ possibly do that to someone. Even if he did it to someone else. Do unto others as you _want_ them to do unto you. You wouldn’t want to die, would you?
With charity towards all and justice for none….!
Sorry - went off topic there. Maybe.
[We were caught up in “outcome based education†when Wilder was governor in Virginia. Dumb me, I couldn’t grasp the concept. Finally, a liberal teacher on the staff spelled it out idiot style to my blinking eyes. You get the kid to 18 and graduate him. Whatever he has learned is the outcome of his education. If you think he did a good job considering who he was and what he was willing to put into it……give him an “Aâ€.]
Say what? And we wonder why our schools are not working? And yet these are the same people who don’t want school choice or a voucher program? Sorry, but you can’t take your kid out of a failing school and put them in a good one? It’s all about power. They want power and in order to keep and increase it the poor must remain poor and on the dole. Always keep that in mind when you deal with them. They don’t want change or progress because then they lose their base of power and control.
The liberal intent is the ‘wussification’ of the American male, there is an effort being made, a concerted effort, to emasculate all American males and turn them into some kind of metro-sexual, PC wussies…
And Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that PCness is destroying this nation…
The U.S. government won’t take up arms to protect our southern border simply because Mexico objects and it wouldn’t be PC to offend them…
Radical Islam is killing our troops in Iraq and our president won’t take the gloves off and tell our troops to go break a lot of stuff and kill everything that points a gun at you, and he won’t do it because he is being PC and doesn’t want to offend our enemies…
Being polite is one thing, being hornswaggled into believing that PCness is the only way to go is a total crock of crap…
One reason liberalism appeals to the young is that it’s what their teachers teach them. They get praise and grades for parroting the Party line. Without real-life experience, they misperceive indoctrination as idealism.
Anyone whose brain isn’t frozen hard as concrete will grow more conservative with time, because they will see that liberalism is based on bad ideas and sloppy thinking. As Klavan notes, liberal policies never actually work. And their track record of foolish hysteria becomes self-evident over time (see Warming, Global).
LaShawn,
It’s not simply peer pressure, it’s thought osmosis. We’re immersed forehead deep in a culture that’s saturated with this sort of polite but very destructive lie and it’s become intrinsic to English as spoken today. It’s no longer a matter of trying to avoid spouting PC, it’s a matter of pointedly and with truth aforethought avoiding the cant that makes up what passes for dialog in common conversation. It’s VERY hard to do. Much PC-speak has approached cliche, and we’re all very susceptible to using the shortcuts that are cliches to both speed and ease “communication.” Of course, that’s laziness, and the net result is not true comunication, but sort of a verbal recognition and handshake, “I’m one of the tribe, see?”
I realized just how much it had affected me when I went back to school about a decade ago and was exposed to more of the libprog (liberal/progressive or liberal programming, or both) leading edge. When I began “unpacking” what I was hearing and reading, I (being a too self-conscious sort of guy as it is) began examining my own language more. I’m infected! What’s worse, it’s a rapidly mutating virus that’s very hard to eliminate from the system. We simply cannot eliminate it, all we can do is treat the rapidly changing symptoms as soon as we recognise them.
It’s a full-time effort and complete success is simply impossible as long as we pretend to share the same language as does the other (those aliens who pretend to be humans, but clearly aren’t if their descriptions of what it is to be human are accurate.)
It’s interesting that what was once considered “salty” language is now the norm. And what is simple truth is now taboo in polite conversation. It’s become “salty.”
But we are the salt of the earth, so I guess this role was meant to be ours.
LaShawn - Because of your “books” thread the other day, I pulled a couple of books off my shelf that are collections of great American prose and poetry. These collections used to be textbooks and were published in the 1920s. Of course, all of the authors are white, and most are men.
It got me thinking: I wish authors like the brilliant and eloquent Frederick Douglass and others had been represented in such a collection — but if it were done today, who would be tossed aside? What “dead white men” would be summarily dismissed for the “crime” of being dead white men from such a collection, when previously their work had been celebrated?
That’s what gets my blood boiling, so I totally agree with the premise of this post.
Plain speaking is foreign to liberals, because their philosophy only works in the abstract.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Just curious. What is the “truth about racial” (not cultural) differences that has become off-limits?
The “conservatives” have as much PC sewage as the liberals, LaShawn.
A U of C law professor wrote this about the recent PBA decision: “What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore. Ultimately, the five justices in the majority all fell back on a common argument to justify their position. There is, they say, a compelling moral reason for the result in Gonzales. Because the intact D & E seems to resemble infanticide it is “immoral†and may be prohibited even without a clear statutory exception to protect the health of the woman. By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality.”
Hugh Hewitt critized him for “slander” and “being a bigot”.
It is really too bad that the leader you elected into office is the biggest offender. The fact of the matter is that your conservative leader is proven liar.
La Shawn, it would appear you’ve struck a liberal nerve here.
Re #30: (a) he’s not a conservative; (b) what did he lie about? WMD? Relying on the best available intelligence does not constitute lying, even if it later turns out to have been wrong. The Niger/yellowcake uranium/Iraq connection? Not a lie. Joe Wilson himself has been conclusively, incontrovertibly proven as the liar here. So what is it?
The stampede from merely liberal to postmodern progressive culminated around 1990. What convinced me of this was the differing reception for the two Gods Must Be Crazy movies. The first one played for months to packed houses, laughing uproariously. By the time the second one was released, the word had gone out that the premise of the movie was politically incorrect, and liberals stayed away in droves.
This was about the time that “I, Rigoberta”, which won Ms Menchu a Nobel, was exposed as a fabrication, which revelation evoked only a yawn from the Left. After all, it had “truthiness”.
About the same time, the liberal teachers at my kids’ school started discussing incidents subject to PC interpretation in terms of “This is how we need to ‘hold’ this”. What they meant was, here’s a way of putting it you can believe despite the obvious contradictions.
BDS has deepened and widened the psychosis. Elect a Republican in 2008, and I believe we will be seeing the gourds of multitudes of Lefties spontaneously exploding.
La Shawn:
No one is more confused than San Francisco Leftists, including the cops.
Pizza shop owner shot and killed an armed robber, and SF Chronicle called the event “tragic”.
Even cops cautioned against citizens taking direct action against criminals. “But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did.”
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=24542
To be PC is to pretend racial disparities like underachievement or high crime rates are caused by genetics and white liberals instead of by individuals and something lacking within the subculture itself, and to say otherwise is taboo.
Frank, gotta love this part:
FOOL!!! Don’t give me none of that jiber-jabber! The dude lived by the gun and died by the gun. I’ll even bet the fool was holding his gun all wrong like some hollywood pose while the owner took aimed his weapon like he was trained.
“Of course, all of the authors are white, and most are men.”
And, in truth, what would be the reason for that?
I agree LaShawn. Especially on personal responsibility. With 60 minutes airing the repugnant way in which the don’t snitch mentality allows crime to run rampant in some communities, and said attitude being blamed squarely on the shoulders of the police dept. Let them live in a violent area that cannot get better because of themselves. Not “helping” police is not helping yourself. Let the killers run free and kill again they won’t be going to Beverly Hills they will continue to kill in the same community over and over again. And whose fault is that?
Jim stated, “The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore.”
Jim, I don’t know what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that Judaism condones partial birth abortion? Do you even know anything about Judaism or Jewish law? Do you believe that Ginsberg bases her decisions upon Jewish law? Just for your information, while Judaism permits abortion in certain situations, it does not support PBA because there is a ruling that if the larger part of the baby has emerged from the womb, it now has equal standing to the mother, and we cannot sacrifice one life for another. So to my understanding, PBA would not even be allowed to save the life of the mother in Jewish law.
Batyah, please read my post more carefully: I didn’t say it. A law professor did. And his question about whether the Catholic religion influenced the 5 that voted to uphold the law led Hugh Hewitt to call him a bigot. To me, that’s a reasonable question.
My point? PC can be found on both sides of the political divide.
Sorry about that, Jim! I figured it out right after I hit the “post it” button, but my post didn’t appear right away so I thought it got lost as it sometimes does and that I didn’t need to write a follow up “oops.”
I agree that everyone across the political divide is infested with some degree of PC. It’s just worse with the libs.
Jim,
I agree with you. PC is on both sides. Just look at some of the lines conservatives have come up with to run away from the facts —”Intelligent Design”—is an example.
However, in making this comparison about the recent decline in American culture due to liberalism, what former period represents America at its best? This is an answer I would really like to hear.
I AGREE
#37 - “Of course, all of the authors are white, and most are men.â€
“And, in truth, what would be the reason for that?”
Ummm…what are you questioning, JohnD? I was simply stating a fact.
LaShawn you stated,
“Honest†dialogues aren’t really honest all. They’re one-sided victimhood rallies.
I tend to agree.
You won’t believe how many times I’ve read varioations of:
“Boohoo, I can’t succeed because of whitey”
“Waaaaah, I can’t say that blacks are genetically
less intellignet because of PC liberals”
“SOB! I can’t call homeless people good-for nothing-bums because of cry baby feminazi pussyboys insisting it’s ’society’s fault”
“snifflewarrraaghh, I can’t call gays abominations because I get called ‘Hitler’ by liberal wussified males and their feminsit cohorts”
“booowhooo, the poor rainforest is being destroyed by bad white men”
“waaaahhhhh, liberals won’t let me sell a million books calling them all liars”
Etc.
olitivs - equal opportunity blame games, no facts needed. Hyperbole welcome. Generalizations don’t need an excuse or any evidence. If that’s ‘the truth’, I’ll stick to my eyes and ears.
Hogwash, folks.
PC was a term coined specifically to refer to the speech/thought manipulations of the modern Left.
The modern Left is often refered to as liberal but in fact are strongly opposed to the liberal tradition in the West. More accurately, they are postmodern progressives, though, again, progressive is a misnomer.
Naturally, there is collective influence across all political modalities, but you won’t see anything approaching PC groupthink among conservatives or libertarians. And Intelligent Design is certainly not an apt example as it is embraced by reactionaries, not conservatives, and not even all reactionaries by any means.
Thinkers on the right tend to follow the philosophies of Locke, Smith, Mill, Popper, Mies, Hayek and similar free-inquirers. Those on the left adhere to Marx, Gramsci, Diderot, Foucoult, Keynes and similar dogmatists and relativists. Those on the right, then, have a tradition of pragmatic search for what actually works. Those on the left are content with feel-good ideologies.
Oh, come on, Charlie. No “PC groupthink” among conservatives? Please explain, then, why conservatives tend to use/recycle similar explanations and why conservative radios listener numbers tend to be so high. What do you think “ditto” means to the Rushites? That they disagree with Rush?
It’s just a different shade of groupthink, IMHO.
“Intelligent Design” is a misnomer. It should be “Wishful Design”.
PC works both ways people. If you want to tell the “truth”, be ready to hear the truth right back. If the dialogue in the country weren’t so rude and coarse maybe some wouldn’t feel the need to run to PC for cover.
Shawn…please keep up the good fight. We need you.
As for your question…I AGREE. I am around a lot of “PC think”. It’s stressful to react to it, but it’s also stressful to ignore it. I don’t know the answer. I often speak up but it’s draining and it’s always a risk. But if I don’t speak up, not only do I have the anxiety in not speaking up…but I also wonder if the “friend” I am speaking to would like me for who I am, whether or not I agree with them.
I wish I could meet all you people!!!
Jim, your logic is faulty. I listen to Rush because he voices what I believe, most of the time. And when I disagree with him, I’m quite well aware of it. The tired old canard about Rush leading legions of mind-numbed robots is pure hogwash.
Beside that, we’re not talking about groups who hold similar views; we’re talking about facts vs. feelings and prevarications.
I AGREE. I would rather tell the truth instead of being liked. Society wants us to conform to their hate of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, Jesus Christ our Lord & Savior.
I celebrate diversity however, I disagree that diversity means allowing the laws of the land to be subjugated to it.
Because I usually don’t fear someone else’s opinion - I will say it out loud: abortion is wrong and PBA, D&E is murder; illegal immigration is that - illegal; illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty (amnesty another white lie); LaShawn hit the nail square on its head the subculture within the black culture continues to do far more harm than “the [white] man” to the black community; and I am proud to be a Conservative - unlike Liberals, who never want to be labeled/called/identified as a liberal.
Oh, “PC” is a fallacy.
Jim, you are so totally PC! Of course, in your world, conservatives must also be PC. If they were not, that would put an arrow right through your vaunted “diversity” balloon, wouldn’t it?!
But perhaps you are not clear about what “political correctness” really is. It sure as heck isn’t “groupthink.”
Global warming caused by the stupidity and greed of mankind is the politically correct analysis by the left. (Their groupthink.)
However, many of us believe that global warming is a part of the cycle of climate change on mother earth and that we need to have scientific fact (not consensus) about the impact of man before we run off screaming about how the sky is falling. We are not politically correct in our groupthink.
The politically correct think our group is populated by 1) greedy consumers, 2) ignoramuses, 3) destroyers of the balance of nature and/or 4) worse.
The political correctness of the left includes diversity, cultural equality, the amelioration of individual differences, sports without keeping score, the understanding that religion is a social form for some and an opiate for the ignorant masses and so forth ad nauseum.
Please make your specific list of political correctness on the right. It will be oh, so revealing.
Exactamento, Jim
The term Politically Correct comes from Marxist-Leninist use. In the 70s, people on the Left began using the term as a pejorative for others on the Left who were more doctrinaire (esp. Herbert Marcuse).
It does not apply to conservatives (apart from some half-clever attempts by Labor leaders in Australia and Britain a while back).
Is there groupthink among conservatives? As, I said, there’s some in every political modality. We are social creatures after all.
However, being a libertarian with friends of all political stripes who has lived in both the bluest of blue counties (SF Bay Area) and reddest of red counties (N Texas) who had one son graduate from the most “liberal” college in America and another at one of the most conservative and who never shies away from a good political discussion, little ol’ Bible Belt granny ladies tend to be quite a bit more open minded in my experience than your average liberal arts assistant professor.
LaShawn,
I’m flattered! Thanks for the link, you really added to the Klavan piece.
Sorry you can’t make the MILBLOG Conference this year, we’ll miss you!
But Happy 40th Birthday in advance
This is fun…
Can I join in?
Tell the truth?
Tim Wise is called “guilty white liberal” yet many of the things that I have read from him, are factual. But he’s a “guilty white liberal.” That, BTW, is equivalent to “Uncle Tom” name calling. For example, White riots
Telling the truth?
In the process of selling my 1st home, I was told to get rid of all personal pictures to depersonalize the house. I was also told to get rid of any “Black art” pictures to make the house seem as though it is not owned by a Black person.
Is that telling the truth?
Some public conservatives praised “Paved with Good Intentions” without going into Jared Taylor’s background. Let’s see, he thinks Blacks are intellectually inferior because of genetics, specifically IQ and ‘g’ and also believes Blacks are genetically prone to violence so the laws should take that into account.
Tell the truth?
After the last election, Rush Limbaugh stated the GOP losing “freed him” to tell the truth. Hmmmm….
Tell the truth?
How many public “conservative evangelicals” comment on the “white” church and “Black” church divide? Why did CeCe Winans have to “de-gospel” her music to gain a white Christian audience?
Tell the truth?
How many public white evangelicals said anything about the dispute Rev. Fred Price had with his former friend over interracial marriage? How many evangelicals backed Price during his year long series about race, religion, and racism?
Tell the truth?
“No one” tells the truth about OOW births in the Black community but I’ve been hearing Blacks talk about it and try to address it since the 80s.
Tell the truth?
How about so-called “Black leaders” or other “high profile” Blacks not dealing with the filth in rap? A 20 minute search, literally, in Google, shows that not to be the case.
Not telling the truth?
you can’t talk about personal responsibility in the context of underachievement among black students, or you’re a racist.
Meanwhile, since the 80s when I have visited book stores, I’ve seen Black authors address the problem and give solutions that center on Blacks doing for self, ie, personal responsibility. How about Jawanza Kunjufu who I’ve heard about since the mid-90s?
Not telling the truth?
What about the folks who say Blacks “talk in secret” but aren’t doing anything but sites like this prove otherwise?
Not telling the truth?
“All things started going to hell in the 60s.” The same decade Blacks obtained legal full rights. Coincidence?
Not telling the truth?
Only liberals practice PC.
Uhhh… NO.
You wrote it: . “Honest” dialogues aren’t really honest all. They’re one-sided victimhood rallies.
HMMMM……
Ok, let’s try these questions:
1). How many blogs or newspapers do you read a day that aren’t right-center or right?
2). Do you believe that all liberals are evil?
3). Do you believe that all liberals can’t be Christian?
4). Do you believe that “mainstream” Christians are in fact Christians (remember that Dobson’s spokesman said two weeks ago that Thompson was not a Christian because Dobson considered only Evanglical Christians to be Christians).
5). Do you believe it is possible to question US’s commitment to Israel, or the influence of Jewish people in the US Government to Israel, without being anti-Semitic?
6). Do you believe it is possible that there is global warming?
7). Do you believe it is possible for there to be a valid reason to raise taxes?
8). Have you ever told your pastor or a bible study group that you disagree with “consensus” opinion?
8a). If you did express disagreement, what would be the likely outcome? Would you be removed or shunned as a member?
9). If you disagreed with a war, when and how would it ever be possible to publicly express disagreement?
(And BTW I consider myself a libertarian, Charlie, not a liberal and I am clearly not a diversity supporter (unless you count diverse ways of thinking as part of it; race and color by themselves are not true diversity). I too have lived in both parts of this country. And “groupthink” is dangerous, IMHO, on both sides of the fence ).
Whew! You sure did sidestep actually dealing with political correctness by a few giant steps. But I will fingerprint myself with your funky Rorschach test. 1) WaPo subscription and daily rag. Look in on KOS regularly. 2) I save evil for special occasions. I am not prone to toss words like Nazi, Rape, Racism, Evil, Disaster, Hopeless, etc. around for effect. I do think most liberals in the US are vested in state socialism as their primary objective. I think that will be no better for us than it has been for France or England. Evil is reserved for rougher stuff than universal health care. 3) I never met a liberal fundamentalist. I think that would be surprising. “All liberals can’t be Christians” is a revealing question and presumes a real disdain for the person being questioned. It says worlds about the questioner. 4) Dobson, Shobson. Who died and made him the inheritor of the mantle of Christ? What in the world is a “mainstream” Christian? Oh, I get it….that is another political correctness code word. 5.) Can I question “the influence of Jewish people in the US Government to Israel, without being anti-Semitic”? Hello? If you are implying a Jewish conspiracy or cabal, I will remain mute. That is KKK stuff. If you are asking if a Jew might take special interest in representing a personal interest then I would think that was fairly normal. Just about everybody in government pursues their special interests. That includes women, blacks, gays, gun owners, pot smokers, Mormons and three legged wombats. Do I think we can question the ties between the US and Israel. Heck yes….and every other country in the world. 6) There is global warming. So what? 7.) There are valid reasons to impose taxes. There are valid reasons to raise taxes. There are valid reasons to change the tax system. There are valid reasons to drop taxes. There are valid reasons to reduce taxes. And the next tax question would be…….?
Huh? Really, I’m serious here. Huh? 8a) You must have really been burned by church politics somewhere. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the nave and find another spot. Towns are full of churches. 9) You have the absolute right to disagree with a war you think is wrong. Have at it. When you are one of the 535 in Congress, you had best consider whether your opposition is sincere statesmanship or political calculation. If it is the former, then stand up for your beliefs and take the heat. If Harry Reid is serious he should fight relentlessly to sequester the troops in an area of safety while he helps create their safe retreat. Anything less makes him a significant factor in escalating the danger they are already in.
“Groupthink is dangerous.” I guess that is the kiss of death for the Ten Commandments. Too bad, they were fairly direct and useful.
I couldn’t disagree more. In my experience, being a conservative requires living life with blinders firmly in place, refusing to acknowledge the truth that is all around you. Having a first-trimester abortion is EXACTLY THE SAME as killing a baby? The Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so? All Muslims are terrorists who “hate us for our freedoms”? America is “a Christian nation” despite our founding documents and the words of our founding fathers to the contrary? The list of lies conservatives tell one another goes on and on. And if anyone disagrees? Well, watch out! You’ll be flayed and then pushed out of the group. On the other hand, I have always shown tolerance to my most conservative relatives and co-workers. I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion for myself (my choice for me is no abortion–I don’t believe I have a right to choose for anyone else.) My conservative co-workers started calling me “baby killer” at the office because someone asked me about my position on this issue and then spread the word. They made my every day at the office hell because I wouldn’t agree with them that the government should outlaw all abortion. The big picture is that conservatives are all walking around like bobble-heads, nodding in unision. You don’t believe me? Tell your church group or your Young Republicans group that you believe in a woman’s right to control her own body. You’ll be treated like a traitor and shunned, I guarantee it.
Okay everyone, you might find this article, if you can call drivel and article, interesting. It was on Fox News online, and I am just becoming so disenchanted with Fox and this is not the first time I’ve felt betrayed by them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268081,00.html
A study plainly showed the children from religious homes were better behaved, had better relationships with peers, and were better students academically. But then someone decides to ask the question, “maybe it’s not the religion makes better kids, maybe it’s that only parents with better kids feel comfortable at church.”
Whaaaaah????
After the article glossed over the obvious results of the study, it was in a hurry to find a flaw with religious families: if parents argue about faith, whoah then, THAT can be very very bad.
I would have expected Fox to write a respectful article about the study results. I guess I should be thankful that Fox even covered the story at all, seeing as how no other mainstream media did.
We can’t even use the word “evil” any more, you must say “troubled” which just excuses the whole thing.
Evil = a moral judgment, which we aren’t supposed to do. The reason was that the killer was depressed, or had anxiety….it’s never because the killer is “evil”.
There’s a bit of “point missing” going on here in relation to the topic, at least among the more liberal posters.
Perhaps these items will clear up some of the confusion:
1. “Republican” is not the same as “conservative.”
2. People who deliberately distort, engage in PC gibberish, and refuse to directly address a subject in a factual manner are not behaving like conservatives.
3. Liberals (as opposed to blatant and deliberately destructive leftists) often don’t even know that they are engaged in distortions. For example, the use of the disingenuous phrasing about “a woman’s right to control her own body” when what is really meant is the right for a woman to kill her unborn child.
On the notion that one is NOT pro-abortion but merely pro-choice. This is not a position that makes sense to me.
Here are some of the comments I have heard recently.
1) I am not pro-abortion but pro-choice and think women should have the choice to abort for any reason at any time, but I do not think anyone should have the choice to smoke in their own private business
2) I am not pro-abortion but pro-choice but don’t think women should have the choice to abort in the last trimester
3)I am not pro-abortion but pro-choice and think women should have the choice to abort for any reason at any time but I do not think that anyone should have the choice to verbally/physically abuse their children
4)I am not pro-abortion but pro-choice and think women should have the choice to abort for any reason at any time but I do not think that folks should have the right to consume trans-fats or eat foie-gras.
5) I am not pro-abortion but pro-choice but would never allow female circumcision in our society
Reality check: NO ONE is Pro-CHOICE!
We do not sanction behaviors that we think should not be sanctioned.
If, morally speaking, a conservative is only a liberal minus ten years then the word that comes to mind is ‘hubris’. Let he who stands take heed lest he fall. ‘Conservative’ is only a holding word; something progressive has to be argued, the best place to develop that argument surely ought to be in confessional caucus, if we are all content to be conservative only, then truth will hardly march on, will it? I admit that ‘conservative’ is not being used ontologically in politics but it is a word never-the-less that can rise up and bite you.
Klavan lives in a PC town, which I can relate to as I live in a collegetown. In the last few years I’ve decided that I cannot sit and listen to such preposterous statements such as “America is such a wealthy country, yet we have some of the poorest people” and “Americans are greedy,” etc. etc. I discovered that if you speak up, even in a non-confrontational manner, you run a real risk of having people never want to speak to you again. It’s pretty unbelievable, in fact, I wouldn’t believe it if it hadn’t happened time and again.
I’ve found that you can state facts and make solid arguments that refute their arguments, but that the liberals I know really don’t want anything to disturb their world view. This in a collegetown among people who make it their livelihood to be “thinkers.”
For the record, I believe that I am more of a libertarian than a conservative, and I’m only a Republican so that I can vote in primaries. I occasionally listen to Rush because he makes me squirm often enough to make me really consider whether or not I agree with him. Do liberals have a similar relationship with a “messenger” for the left, I wonder.
Jim, if you’re still around,
Tornado hit down a mile from us last night, and we’ve been without power.
Glad Heliotrope stepped in and responded as I don’t have the jam for such marathons of minutia. But your post does allow me to throw in a set of particularly pertinent experiences.
I had a client who marketed through Christian broadcasters. They always asked my beliefs. When I responded “atheist”, it never become an issue. In fact, a couple of times it led to fascinating and broadminded conversations.
OTOH, progressive friends react as if I’m demented and brainwashed when I choose not to echo their animus against Christians.
If you are a left-leaning libertarian, then you would enjoy Camile Paglia’s piece exhorting liberals to give up Political Correctness since it detracts from their positions on feminism and similar issues. It might give you some perspective on why PC is a term that applies only to the Left form of groupthink. Sorry, it’s from a few years back. Don’t have a link.
Meanwhile, in response to pts 2 & 3, there aren’t many liberals left on the Left (in the true sense, i.e., lover of liberty). There’s Joe Lieberman, Mort Kondracke and ???. Haven’t you heard, all the true liberals became Neo-Cons twenty years ago. You are right though–I have rapidly lost all patience with the postmodern progressivism antics that have prevailed on the Left over the past four years or so.
#65 John Kilpatrick has delivered a true thunderbolt of convoluted misfeasance in the practice of the art of communication and plain speaking.
Should anyone dare to parse his meaning (if any exists) I recommend two aspirin and a nap.
Epistemology is “made of sterner stuff.” It is a terrible existence to go through life never shifiting out of sophomore.
“Epistemology is “made of sterner stuff.†It is a terrible existence to go through life never shifiting out of sophomore.”
I’m trying to figure out if this was a ‘plain-speaking’ insult to the poster in question, or merely a condescending side-swipe.
What does such a method of ‘discussion’ achieve?
Truthfully…
Does it make the insulter feel good about himself?
Or is the insult believed to be encouraging, inasmuch as the receiver of the insult would maybe be rightly spurred to achieve Heliotrope’s (assumed)higher standards of philosophical debate?
Or is it just name-calling? Like this subject matter?
I realize our gracious and astoundingly talented hostess professes to be libertarian. I forgive her that quirk as she is otherwise a great thinker.
[I have libertarian tendencies when it comes to EDUCATION, but not for much else. I think a free market approach to education in this country would improve the quality of schools and provide kids with a much better education.
- Admin]
If you look at the posts of “libertarians” above, you will see that if libertarians were to group together and meet sometime they would produce a wonderful sideshow of egocentric flamethrowing and character assassination.
When, in the past, the “libertarians” have fielded candidates the candidates invariably went off half cocked and ended up drooling on themselves.
I don’t favor the American League over the National League. But if you are going to have a team in the World Series, you have to go with the structure. I have no complaint with someone being unaffiliated with either political party. But if you are concentrating your efforts on being “libertarian” or “independent” of “moderate” then you are not really in the game.
To me, “libertarian” is just a code word for “independent with an attitude.” As there is no libertarian manifesto, platform or agenda, claiming to be libertarian fails to have meaning.
“Will you have a serving of pulled pork?” “No thanks, I’m a libertarian.”
Jim #47 - “Dittos” on Limbaugh’s show has nothing to do with agreeing with the host, as anyone who actually, you know, LISTENS to the show knows. It merely means that you “think the show is great and keep up the good work.” It’s a time-saving phrase invented so callers don’t waste time praising the host and the show. That’s all. You can wildly disagree with Limbaugh - as many callers do - but still listen in and enmjoy the show.
Usually only people who never listen think that “dittos” means you agree with everything Limbaugh says.
Someone mentioned Hayek above. Hayek is responsible for a “history comes alive†moment for me. In his Road to Serfdom, he explains how socialism paved the way for the three big evils of the 20th century (Nazism, communism, fascism). One thing he mentioned was that as socialism was gaining ground, they perverted words such as “freedom.†They promised you would be “free,†but what they meant was you would be free because they will choose for you and think for you and decide for you. Anyone wanting freedom and thinking socialism was offering it could get suckered because they thought the socialists were using the standard definition, when in fact they weren’t.
Hayek published the book in 1944. Orwell reviewed it. In 1949 Orwell wrote 1984. In 1984 everyone has to use “newspeak.†Prior to reading Hayek I had thought Orwell had come up with the concept of newspeak from a fertile imagination, but the shocker was that he based it on a real life phenomenon. I see PC speech as just the newest variation of what Hayek and Orwell warned against. As long as that ideology lives, some form of newspeak/PC speech will live on with it. It’s good that people such as Klavan resist it, and it’s especially good that Klavan resists, as Klavan is a writer, and writers ought to be on the front lines against PC speech.
Helio, I’m shocked and dismayed that you would put the American League on a par with the vastly superior (and far more manly) National League.
Heliotrope,
First you confuse libertarian with Libertarian.
Then you didn’t even bother before posting to search “libertarianism” to find that it is indeed a coherent political philosophy. Some libertarians are Democrats; more are Republicans. A few are Independents, and a very few are even Libertarians.
Tyrian Purple,
You may enjoy searching on Antonio Gramsci which will lead to a variety of articles claiming success for the old USSR in transplanting what is now the PC platform via hard Lefties here in an effort to undermine US cohesion.
So far these articles strike me as an example of groupthink on the Right (as Jim might have it), but it’s interesting that the tropes now current on the Left are quite similar to the Communist ideological campaign that started during the 70s (apparently). As I mention above, the term PC was originally used by those on the Left against followers of Marcuse, writers at Dissent and other Marxists peddling that line.
Ok, let’s try these questions:
1). How many blogs or newspapers do you read a day that aren’t right-center or right?
The assumption here is that the correlation is the causative.
The reality is that the right blogs, talkshows and other media MUST be studying and reporting on the left media for it is the left media and its curious ability to propagandize rather than report that is at the forefront of the right’s issues today.
The real question might be the exact opposite of yours, “Does the left actually read the rightwing blogs, actually listen to Rush Limbaugh rather than take the distortions of outlets like Media Matters etc. and see for themselves what is really being said and reported on?”
Reading those left blogs, I find that they do not.
2). Do you believe that all liberals are evil?
This is an example of an attempt to use the extreme to advantage.
It does not work on people who apply logic to any situation as best they can, it only works as a ploy to gain favor with those who attempt to surplant critical thinking with emotion and feelings.
Same ploy has been used recently about the right to keep and bear arms on college campuses, every single left retort about it I’ve read goes to the extreme hyperbole of “every student on the campus with a firearm” rather than take into account any of the facts involved, such as the fact that every student on a given campus would not apply for the concealed carry permit, some would not be able to pass the background check, others just plain may not be interested. Yet the histrionic and hugely distorted “worst case scenario” is very often the only one the left will entertain. This is known as being “disengenuous”.
3). Do you believe that all liberals can’t be Christian?
Do you believe that all atheists can’t be conservative?
See my reply to number 4…
4). Do you believe that “mainstream†Christians are in fact Christians (remember that Dobson’s spokesman said two weeks ago that Thompson was not a Christian because Dobson considered only Evanglical Christians to be Christians).
This represents a perfect example of the problem being discussed here.
“Colorado Springs, Colo. – Focus on the Family issued the following statement today regarding a story that appeared Wednesday on the U.S. News & World Report Web site quoting the ministry’s founder and chairman, James C. Dobson, Ph.D:
“We welcome the opportunity to clarify Dr. Dobson’s remarks that were first reported in Dan Gilgoff’s online article titled ‘Dobson Offers Insight on 2008 Republican Hopefuls: Focus on the Family Founder Snubs Thompson, Praises Gingrich.’ At the outset, it’s important to note that this headline is an outright mischaracterization of the views Dr. Dobson expressed. His words weren’t intended to represent either an endorsement of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or a disparagement of former Sen. Fred Thompson. Dr. Dobson appreciates Sen. Thompson’s solid, pro-family voting record and his position that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
“In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn’t clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson and wasn’t certain that his understanding of the former senator’s religious convictions was accurate. [b]Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren’t reported by Mr. Gilgoff.[/b] We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.” emphasis added
5). Do you believe it is possible to question US’s commitment to Israel, or the influence of Jewish people in the US Government to Israel, without being anti-Semitic?
I believe it depends upon HOW you word the question.
6). Do you believe it is possible that there is global warming?
As a practicing engineer of some 40 years, I propose, as I have many times before, that someone set up an experiment that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gas known as Carbon Dioxide can indeed reflect any significant amount of radiant heat energy.
If you are alive, you exhale CO2 at the back side of every respiration cycle, yet our Supreme Court has declared this to be a form of pollution now.
Real and truthful science is not and never has depended upon consensus in order to find a proof.
Science is supposed to be the seeking of truth by being able to not only demonstrate a scientific phenomenon but being able to publish your data in such fashion that any other scientist can PROOF your work by repeating the same experiment and achieving the same exact result.
7). Do you believe it is possible for there to be a valid reason to raise taxes?
When I’m already paying at the 50% level, NO.
God and Jesus only demand a 10% tithe and they raised the dead.
8). Have you ever told your pastor or a bible study group that you disagree with “consensus†opinion?
Yes.
Then again, so did Jesus.
Matter of fact that is what He was all about.
8a). If you did express disagreement, what would be the likely outcome? Would you be removed or shunned as a member?
From bitter experience, I can tell you that I have left them long before they could ostracize me, for I know that it is a good thing to “leave that city and shake the dust off of my sandals” on the way out, baby.
9). If you disagreed with a war, when and how would it ever be possible to publicly express disagreement?
It is not the disagreement that is the offensive thing going on today, it is the chosen METHODOLOGIES of the disagreement that is disgraceful.
It may be legal to burn and defecate on my country’s flag, but it is also legal to do a lot of other things that I find to be deplorable. Slavery was legal once. Didn’t make it right.
(And BTW I consider myself a libertarian, Charlie, not a liberal and I am clearly not a diversity supporter (unless you count diverse ways of thinking as part of it; race and color by themselves are not true diversity). I too have lived in both parts of this country. And “groupthink†is dangerous, IMHO, on both sides of the fence ).
No human is perfect.
Matter of fact, that is the foundation of Christianity, that we are all born in sin and that only by the Grace of God do we find salvation.
I see lots of people pointing the finger at Christianity by making the hidden assumption that being Christian should be some kind of absolute guarantee that the human being who is a Christian is supposed to be perfect in every way. This is not based in any Biblical writing in any way, nor is it supported by any Christian denomination that I know about, yet it persists.
Just because you are a practicing Christian does not mean that you are awarded some kind of “get out of sin free” card.
We have to be able to examine a subject thoroughly, seeking to find the TRUTH of the matter at all times, then and only then can we make a decision based upon Critical Thinking and not any other reason.
For example, I am a Black American man and a Christian man who studied history on his own time and found out some things that for me at that time in life were disconcerting concerning what I thought and accepted to be true and what is really the case.
When I discovered that the Republican party was started around 1859 or so because of the slavery issue and that the Republican party were the abolitionists, that after the so-called Civil War there were Black Republicans holding offices in high places and that it was the Democratic party that backed TERRORISM in these United States in order to wrest power from blacks by creating race riots and KKK lynchings until the black people voted for the Democrats, it was unsettling to say the least.
This is what knowing the truth is really all about.
If you don’t know the recent goings on concerning the Wilmington Race Riot, if you don’t know who the Rev. Wayne Perryman is and the fact that we are now having to take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States in order to get a mere apology from the Democratic National Party for something that history has proven to be true, that even the spokesmen and women for that party admitted were true under oath in a court of law, you should find out.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/
The Machine is only interested in the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
Charlie, I covered Roger McBride’s self financed run at the presidency as the Libertarian Party’s candidate in 1976. The current evolution of the Libertarian Party claims to date itself back to 1971. It has also been fairly careful about who among its “founding fathers” it openly embraces. It is rife with a history of bizarre leaders whose internecine wars are worth a cartoon series.
The Libertarian Party claims to be the third largest party in the United States. Well, drunks on the tracks during NASCAR races would be the fourth.
Until a Libertarian Party candidate hits a governor’s seat or Congress, it remains in the brotherhood of Eugene V. Debs, Gus Hall, Norman Thomas, Barry Commoner, John Anderson and, of course, Lyndon Larouche.
I have taught about and covered these people since the 1960’s. I do not rely upon Wikipedia for my information. I stand by everything I posted above, and though my head is gray, I am not confused on the topic.
Some “libertarians” carry the water for Ayn Rand, Hayek, Friedman, etc. Others, in a more distant past were locked into Hobbes and Mill. But there is no libertarian political philosophy, only a desire that one will emerge and grow to a consequential importance. I am confident that somewhere there is a Ward Churchill type who has built a college course all full of vinegar promoting the great libertarian political philosophy based on his own definitions. Beyond that, it doesn’t rate a decimal in the Dewey decimal system.
JohnD @ #60: “Does it make the insulter feel good about himself?”
Why don’t you ask Churchill, Disraeli or Twain? Oh yeah, they’re dead white men.
The verse ’suffering fools gladly’ comes to mind.
2Co 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.
Read the whole chapter for proper context. Truth & wisdom is hiding in plain sight, just waiting for you, John Kilpatrick and Jim to get smart.
But then again, this just proves La Shawn’s point that those enamored of PC thinking do not like their ideology to be challenged or mocked for the lying vapidness that it is.
Hey Heli,
You’ll get no argument from me painting most big-L Libertarians the way you do. I’ve had my share of arguments with them too, particularly trying to explain that it’s a wonderful thing that we have a first-past-the-post political system rather than parliamentary/proportional representation.
However, depending on how the survey is constructed, somewhere between a fifth and a third of Americans are mostly libertarian in outlook. Only–what?–less than 3 percent are Libertarian. And many of those I would describe as libertines rather than libertarian.
As you must know, many prominent conservatives are strongly libertarian. Ronald Reagan reinvigorated conservativism with libertarian ideas, so, again, don’t automatically assume that libertarians are Libertarian.
Tyrian Purple, good that you mentioned Hayek’s book. The Road to Serfdom for Dummies (cartoon) can be seen here http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
The Machine @ #75. DITTO!!!
#7 “Truth & wisdom is hiding in plain sight, just waiting for you, John Kilpatrick and Jim to get smart.”
Thanks for your response.
Charlie,
Many of us took that shortest quiz and found we are “libertarians” at the core.
The problem is, politics and sausage making are one in the same. Therefore, the streamlined libertarian concept gets caught up in the tripe of politics and ususally comes out conservative Republican. That would be me.
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I’ve been tied up at work. Charlie, hope you and your family are okay and Machine, thanks for the follow up information on what Dobson said.
Heliotrope, unfortunately for me, I think the drunks at NASCAR races are the third largest party in the US
My favorite Toni Morrison book is the almost-poetic The Bluest Eye. I re-read it as soon as I finished. Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago did a wonderful production.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
#68 heliotrope says, ‘John Kilpatrick has delivered a true thunderbolt of convoluted misfeasance …’ I suppose that’s what I get for once having given a lad a school report saying, ‘Wears a cloak of perpetual resentment over a hard core of wilful ignorance.’
Well it wasn’t meant to be rocket science, heliotrope, but faced with the ‘revelations’ here of one Brian Coleman about former Tory leader Ted Heath, I’m concerned lest the badge of ‘conservative’ changes its value overnight to mean precisely the opposite of ‘truthful.’ Misfeasance? You have very high standards for ‘comments’ don’t you just? Sorry to have not shown the wisdom befitting my age.
Heliotrope,
Political terminology is all screwed up. What libertarians consider to be the locus of control is the individual. What most US conservatives are conservative about is the classical liberalism of our founders who likewise believed the individual was ultimately in charge of his or her own life. (Conservatives elsewhere may believe control should be exercised by monarchs or the state.)
Progressives (I can’t call them liberals) believe that control belongs in the hands of right-thinking elites. Right now we are seeing one of their periodic inquisitions to determine purity of thought as Bill Moyers charges around to expose those on the Left who wavered at war time. This jockeying among progressive pols to always be showing that they are pure of mind is one reason groupthink is so prominent on the Left (and an explanation why a man of conscience, such as Lieberman, is so abhored).
Maybe Jim will jump in here and explain, but I’ve always thought that when someone claims to be a left-leaning libertarian, they simply support those few progressive positions, such as choice on abortion and drug usage, where the individual decides for her/himself. But they agree that control resides with the individual.
I think we agree (yes?) that a libertarian outlook is largely compatible with conservatism even if that’s not true for a Libertarian outlook. Hell, some of those guys remind me of paleocons.
Thanks, Jim.
One of my son’s classmates said she had fifty trees knocked down in her backyard not a mile from us, but the house was untouched. No injuries anywhere in town, thank goodness.
Charlie, no disagreement here.
I think being a libertarian is simple enough: All but the most basic, collective choices are left up to an individual. Otherwise, we end up paying more in taxes to fund a government that’s doing more than we want it to do.
I’m always very careful about what I label “evil”. There are certain people who annoy me. I don’t like their attitude, or the way they dress. That’s my problem.
But when a killer murders 32 people in cold-blood, why are we, as a society afraid to label that “evil” ??
Most reasonable people would agree that the systematic murder of 32 people is evil, no matter what your religion or ideology.
However, the Mental Health Community—the same people who let John Hinckley Jr. go free, tell us that such conduct is not “evil” at all. It is simply the actions of “troubled” Mentally ill individuals.
—Which waters down and excuses the whole thing.
How refreshing La Shawn!!! You hit it right on the head.
Those of us that choose to live in the REAL WORLD do not have to lie. We confront issues head-on, without the need to pretend, with a clear understanding of RIGHT and WRONG, and without hestitating to call a SPADE A SPADE–in other words, “WE DON’T TAKE ANY CRAP.”
I sleep like a baby at night. I wonder if the the PC people do.
Keep up the good work La Shawn–we need your voice in a world full of crap!
“when a killer murders 32 people in cold-blood, why are we, as a society afraid to label that “evil†??”
I contend that ‘we’ are not ‘as a society’ ‘afraid’ to label a killing evil.
Not that I have a horse in the race of ‘evil’ vs ‘mentalism’, ‘demons’ vs ‘nutjobs’ etc.
What a large part of the blogging community seems afraid of is letting go of rhetorical victimhood/name-calling.
Good
Bad
Evil
Up
Down
Day
Night
Yes
No
Examples of clear and accurate words. Too bad the PC mongers find it necessary to obfuscate simple things to the point that there is no meaning left.
I didn’t “develop a meaningful long-term relationship of mutual trust and affection leading to a possible life partner situation.” I fell in love and got married. The latter description is far more accurate.
One of my best friends is not “differently abled” nor is he “handicapable.” He lost a leg, and therefore he is crippled. He does not consider the word “crippled” to be a pejorative; it’s simply a fact.
Adolph Hitler deserves no examination of his childhood to determine how he became a “victim of corrupting influences combined with life experiences resulting in a sociopathic personality.” He was evil. 4 accurate letters, vs. a string of meaningless PC. gobbledegook.
Btw, I had an egg for breakfast. I did not have a high-protein albumen-filled ovum produced by a female domestic fowl.
Of course conservatives dont HAVE to lie, but they still do…just like liberals.
I call abortion murder. Most of those murders occur at the hands of white women. Yet, conservatives say that that the “black murder” rate is higher, but when you include the abortions, whites have a much rate. But, it doesnt serve their purposes, basing crime on what color you are. Call a spade a spade…sure..whatever…
I say be your own man or woman. I’m conservative on some things, liberal on others.
Good advice. I am my own woman, and I’m conservative on ALL things. - Admin
Luke, a conservative who lies is like a backsliding Christian; not true to his principles.
A leftist who lies is not violating any leftist principles. George Orwell made quite a good case against totalitarian leftists for doing so as an integral part of their agenda.
another great post, thanks. So, your birthday is on May 5? I was wondering what they were celebrating south of the border…
“Heliotrope, unfortunately for me, I think the drunks at NASCAR races are the third largest party in the US”
Comment by Jim — 04.25.07 @ 6:05 pm
“What a large part of the blogging community seems afraid of is letting go of rhetorical victimhood/name-calling.”
Comment by JohnD — 04.26.07 @ 4:10 am
Jim, meet JohnD.
Listen to the man.
>>Adolph Hitler deserves no examination of his childhood to determine how he became a “victim of corrupting influences combined with life experiences resulting in a sociopathic personality.†He was evil. 4 accurate letters, vs. a string of meaningless PC. gobbledegook.>>
Heh. If you believe in a God, and an afterlife, then you can see actions as black and white, and let God judge the shades of gray. If you don’t believe in a God, and you don’t believe in an afterlife, then you have an obligation to seek the greatest justice possible in this world. That means that there is no black and white, there is _only_ gray.
Libs(for the most part) don’t believe in God. Conservatives(for the most part) do.
I don’t know if Hitler was “evil” - I consider evil to be a moral judgement. Certainly his actions were evil - but I’ll leave the moral judgement part up to God. That’s His job.
Likewise Cho.
Machine and JohnD, Helitrope wrote in #76 “The Libertarian Party claims to be the third largest party in the United States. Well, drunks on the tracks during NASCAR races would be the fourth.”
I was just saying that I think the the Libertarian Party would be beaten out by the NASCAR drunks.
Got it. The first time.
Either way, stereotyping of people who enjoy NASCAR races is just as bad as any other stereotyping as far as The Machine is concerned.
Which was the point.
Take a minute or two and check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McjjGlCWc3U
Machine, I think the original joke was that the number of NASCAR drunks ON THE TRACKS would be zero. (They’d be run over).
lukeNC @ #93: “I call abortion murder. Most of those murders occur at the hands of white women. Yet, conservatives say that that the “black murder†rate is higher, but when you include the abortions, whites have a much rate. ”
Please don’t hang plausible propaganda out there to fester in the conscious. It’s like claiming, “Yes it’s bad, but they’re worse, so I’m off the hook”. Instead, methinks you need to look deeper.
The ugly truth: BlackElectorate
Arguing that 66% of abortions are other than black is besides the point. It also doesn’t automatically mean whites did the rest. For the sake of argument, what would the rate be if 55% of abortions were white and whites made up 80% of the population, vs making up 34% of the population? Big difference, eh?
As noted by RedBeard, some conservatives lie. So what? Does it change truth? No, it only means one needs to maintain diligence in finding truth. A far cry from lying to hid the truth as is typical by socialist progressives.
I wouldn’t be so quick to judge one to be a liar based on use of stats. Particularly if outdated stats had formed one’s world view. For them, it’s just a matter of updating their references, but it doesn’t make them a liar.
Frankly, stats can only be absolute as a snapshot of a single point in time. That same stat could change the very next minute, but it does not “give lie” to the original stat.
In no sense is this as egregious as one who spouts fanciful stats that have no basis in reality. Or stats that deliberately ignore or omit vital data. Al Gored’s inconvenient truth comes to mind. Claiming that “there is a consensus” sounds airtight. But peel the layers and you see that it’s based on speculations, chicken-little-ism & hyperbole, not to mention a large heaping of “do a s I say & not as I do”.
“Be your own man or woman… Yeah right, it’s good that you think abortion is murder. Seriously.
However, for the uncritical thinking masses, it’s kinda hard to do if one doesn’t know truth when they see or hear it. And therin lies the rub. Even if the total white murder rate, including abortion, were higher. You’re mixing apples and oranges. One is still legally evil, the other a “self-evident truth of the right to happiness via self-determination”.
The black man/woman is being assaulted from all sides and the family ripped asunder by a thousand little lies like: “keeping it real”, “don’t snitch”, “street cred”, “safe sex”, “it’s all about you, girl”, “right to abortion” ad nauseum. But as sure as the Son will shine, we don’t hold our breath waiting for the truth to out from the likes of the Justice Brothers and the socialist crusaders.
Comments on this entry are closed.