117 Comments

1. reel cobra:

Powerful writing. Clear, concise and right on.

Can there be an opposition to his ideas that is rational and to be taken seriously?

May 22, 2005 - 9:33 am 2. AJ Kaufman:

A very stirring, well-written article. It’s hard to see where opposition would come from. I know hundreds of people of that generation (my dad, included) who can tell similar stories. Thankfully, I learned these lessons while in my early 20s.

May 22, 2005 - 9:37 am 3. Mike_Nargizian:

FULL ANALYSIS OF MCLAUGHLIN GROUP BOOTLICKING OF GALLOWAY HERE http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/05/mclaughlin-group-kisses-galloways-arsh.html

May 22, 2005 - 9:55 am 4. Lola:

And here’s his blog, Sane Nation at

http://www.sanenation.blogspot.com/

May 22, 2005 - 10:12 am 5. Buddy Larsen:

I just came to this post from reading Mike Narzigian’s two links (in the “‘ere’s Galloway” entry). There’s little need for speculation as to why vested ‘progressive’ interests stay inside their wonder-world: “It’s a living!” either or both financial and/or psychological. Amy Goodman, Tariq Ali, all these sorts are understandable fillers of economic niches.

The bafflement–for most of us who try to keep related factual conditions integrated in our world-views–comes from our own Keith Thompson experiences.

Intimates about whom we care deeply, folks otherwise smart and knowing, who will not, or cannot, open their eyes and see the almost supernaturally theatrical demonstration of good vs evil that opened the millenium like a surgery on the ligaments of the world.

May 22, 2005 - 10:12 am 6. Buddy Larsen:

Sorry, typo’d “Nargizian”. Small wonder!

May 22, 2005 - 10:14 am 7. Stace:

I will never forgot the look on John Kerry’s face as he was interviewed on Meet the Press on Jan. 30. He seemed completely depressed, as if Teresa had blown her last penny on bad investments.

Such twisted values, to be sad at the sight of liberated people voting for the first time.

May 22, 2005 - 10:52 am 8. Scott Campbell aka Blithering Bunny:

>I’m separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

This sums it up: leftist politics as religion.

May 22, 2005 - 11:01 am 9. charlotte:

Hugs and kisses to Keith Thompson and his brilliant ‘Common Sense’ manifesto! XXXOOO

May 22, 2005 - 11:02 am 10. Buddy Larsen:

I saw that, Stace. That alone–his utter dooflessness in showing such crappy motivations so incredibly openly–should be sufficient disqualification for head of state. I mean, crappy motivations are one thing, but not even realizing that you have them is quite something else.

May 22, 2005 - 11:06 am 11. Terrye:

This is becoming a rather common place epiphany.

I read Hitchens article about that weird little man Galloway and was struck by the fact that jumping George switched places in Iraq when the UK and the US began to really have a problem with Saddam.

Talibani, the new president is not only a Kurd, he is a Socialist.

May 22, 2005 - 11:16 am 12. Jamie Irons:

Roger and everyone,

I love this article.

And to think it is in the San Francisco Chronicle (which, except for the SFGate Sports section, I no longer read)!

Except for his having grown up in northwestern Ohio (I grew up in Ohio’s northeastern “Connecticut Western Reserve”), our political biographies are almost identical.

I was so impressed I wrote the author a brief email of thanks.

Jamie Irons

May 22, 2005 - 11:19 am 13. David Thomson:

ìThese days the postmodern left…î

Keith Thompson should have spent a little more time on the postmodernist theme. This is far too important to mention only in an offhanded manner. Todayís liberals are often incapable of following a logical argument. They are truly the progeny of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Truth does not exist. Everything is relative. The very concept of rationality is allegedly a con game perpetrated by the capitalist oppressors. This is why a silly woman can claim that John Bolton chased and threw things at her in a hotel corridor. Later she conceded that she merely felt that this occurred! Thomas Klocek, a white man, loses his teaching position at DePaul University because a few darker skin Muslim students objected to his defense of Israel. That they ìfeltî offended was deemed sufficient to justify Klocekís dismissal. Minorities are inherently to be perceived as victims and never as villains. Even if they commit an evil act, itís the fault of the majority white population who supposedly mistreated them.

The leftist mindset does not feel an obligation to provide evidence of wrongdoing. They now hide behind the phony excuse ìthat it might be true.î The accused must either prove their innocence, or the most ridiculous charges continue to be hurled at them.

May 22, 2005 - 11:31 am 14. flenser:

Not to be contrary….oh, what the hell.

Yes, both articles were well written, and the views expressed were all well and good. But what does it say about someone that they finally break with the “progressives” only in January 2005? Mr. Thompson seems a little slow on the uptake.

He also seems to paint the 1960’s liberal movement in excessively romantic terms, as if all its current deficiencies were not present and in evidence even then. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin .. the soul of the modern Democratic party, of the modern “liberal” movement, was forming before his eyes. I don’t think it will do for him to imply, as he seems to, that there has been a gradual drift away from some noble ideals. Yes, the modern progressive movement would like to see Iraq plunged into anarchy. How is this different from what they wanted, and succeeded in getting, in Vietnam? Yes, they want speech codes on campuses. But they were up front about that from their very beginnings.

The gold standard for this sort of piece, for me, remains the writings of Dave Horowitz, who came face to face with the human consequences of of progressive thought, and blanched. Too many who were formerly on the left insist that it was once a noble and idealistic movement that has been hijacked. Thompson’s writings would be more valuable if he explored whether that was really the case, and why so many continue to believe it was.

May 22, 2005 - 11:32 am 15. Buddy Larsen:

There is only one question that a true-hearted democratic socialist should ask: which, of the ballot or the bullet, best lifts the downtrodden?

After locating the question, the answers can be found down at the local library.

Accommodating murderous monsters (though it may be easy because they’re foreign and the victims seem unimportant to one’s own daily life) in return for ephemeral local-club scoreboard points, is not democratic socialism…it’s human-soul corruption.

May 22, 2005 - 11:37 am 16. ahem:

Jamie: Debra Saunders is also featured in the Chronicle.

May 22, 2005 - 11:50 am 17. ShrinkWrapped:

I have many friends and relatives who remain trapped in the kind of liberal mindthink that Thompson has escaped. To be a liberal when the meaning of the word is no longer recognizable means to tolerate severe cognitive dissonance or to keep one’s eyes closed. I went through a list of various “liberal” positions with a relative (affirmative action, redistributive taxation, socialized health care, limits on offensive free speech, etc); while she disagreed on almost every point with the liberal position, (though thought the Iraq war was wrong) she finally threw her hands up and said she could never vote for a Republican because the religious right was going to make this country a theocracy. She could not back up her position; it was a “feeling” and there could be no further disusssion. As a Psychiatrist, all I can do is marvel at the power of feelings to trump facts on a regular basis.

May 22, 2005 - 12:00 pm 18. charlotte:

Flenser,

Your point is well taken. I never have understood how liberals squared their we-love-humanity ideals with supporting/ not opposing the Soviet Union and other forms of communism that imprison their populaces from leaving, ‘re-educate’ them, tell them how to live, what jobs to do and what to think, and restrict their access to news of the outside world.. Even when I was young in the 60s, this was a big d’oh. Has even Hitch addressed this disconnect between free lovers, Nam protestors, and their romantic inclinations toward oppressive statist overlords?

May 22, 2005 - 12:04 pm 19. David Thomson:

ìI don’t think it will do for him to imply, as he seems to, that there has been a gradual drift away from some noble ideals.î

We are in complete agreement. Keith Thompson has been living in a dream world for many years. The evidence was abundantly clear that Americaís leftists had gone off the deep end by no later then the mid 1960s. Herbert Marcuse and other ideological radicals were widely celebrated on many of our nationís campuses.

Mr. Thompson was able to ignore reality because his immediate cultural milieu was rarely criticized in an effective manner. The MSM and the major intellectual institutions ran the show. Today the new media are kicking butt and taking no prisoners.

May 22, 2005 - 12:07 pm 20. David Thomson:

ìTo be a liberal when the meaning of the word is no longer recognizable means to tolerate severe cognitive dissonance or to keep one’s eyes closed.î

These liberals are also interested in protecting their six figure incomes. I would bet that every single person ShrinkWrapped is referring to is well off and represents the top 10% of the most affluent people in our country. This is the tacit understanding of todayís liberalism: you slut for the Democratic Party and other leftist groups—and your bank account will be in real good shape.

May 22, 2005 - 12:15 pm 21. Rick Z:

To remain a committed person of the left in the 21st century is to remain captive of a mythology increasingly divorced from history; and a malignant narcissist who forcloses on the possibility of intellectual, emotional and moral growth by preferring personal feelings (e.g., prejudices) over objective fact.

May 22, 2005 - 12:18 pm 22. Ron:

“We will never know whether Walter Duranty, the principal New York Times correspondent in the U.S.S.R., ever visited Fediivka. Almost certainly not. What we do know is that, in March 1933, while telling his readers that there had indeed been “serious food shortages” in the Ukraine, he was quick to reassure them that “there [was] no actual starvation.” There had been no “deaths from starvation,” he soothed, merely “widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford050703.asp As you know, Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for his disinformation in 1933 and even though the New York Times knows that Duranty lied they still retain the Pulitzer. Disinformation in time of war is an old hand maiden of the left press and still is today. Later, Duranty admitted to knowing of the genocide and thought there were 10 million dead. The New York Times is still doing what they were doing in 1933. bringing disinformation to our country and aid to the enemy.

May 22, 2005 - 12:27 pm 23. Buddy Larsen:

David, one wonders about the role of big money in ruining the Democratic party. McCain-Feingold certainly had the effect of lighting up the Croesus-Left, didn’t it? Left vs Right was founded on Labor vs Capital–but the growth and upward mobility of the USA system has (as PJPII noted) injured the edges of the founding Left/Right dichotomy. So, in light of Keith Thompson’s Manifesto–in which he less ‘leaves the Left’ and more ‘takes it with him’–what is Left/Right now but Past vs Future?

May 22, 2005 - 12:30 pm 24. Buddy Larsen:

Upward mobility–why does it most deviate from the mean, in BOTH directions, in the bluest locations?

May 22, 2005 - 12:33 pm 25. PeterUK:

The confusion arises simply because those who are labelled “Liberals” are no such thing,they are Leftists,viewed from that perspective things start to make sense.

May 22, 2005 - 12:38 pm 26. David Thomson:

ìMcCain-Feingold certainly had the effect of lighting up the Croesus-Left, didn’t it?î

It is hysterically ironic that McCain-Feingold may be the number one reason why the national Democratic Party has probably been destroyed. Never forget the golden rule: he has the gold, rules! This law inadvertently took the power away from the Democratic Party. It no longer has the ability to marginalize the crazies. George Soros and the Daily Kos can tell the party bosses to shove it where the sun doesnít shine.

May 22, 2005 - 12:43 pm 27. Kyda Sylvester:

Keith Thompson is obviously a thoughtful, intelligent man. My question to him and other similarly disillusioned “progressives” is what the hell took you so long? Seriously. The deficiencies of the doctrine so lovingly embraced for so long by so many are so glaring and its precepts so insupportable, one can only wonder how so many thoughtful, intelligent people could have been so mired for so long in such anti-intellectual muck.

America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.

Bravo, Keith, and, well, duh. This is not exactly a new idea, you know. In fact, it’s the doctrine by which some of us have lived for decades if not all our lives (AJ Kaufman says “Thankfully, I learned these lessons while in my early 20s”. Is it possible, do you think, to have learned them in the womb?)

If this seems ill-humored, I apologize (perhaps I need a longer vacation?). I welcome Mr. Thompson and anyone else who has “seen the light”. Really I do. But I don’t wish to celebrate their conversion unequivically. A great deal of damage was done by the left in the last century, and much of it never can be undone. This is not simply a matter of singing a few songs of myself. There are some mea culpas in order as well as hardheaded (and I mean that in the pragmatic, not willful, sense) proposals for undoing the damage that still can be undone.

May 22, 2005 - 12:47 pm 28. thedragonflies:

Wonderful article, good to see such courage in such an unlikely place as the San Francisco Chronicle. I made the same transition 20 years ago.

Prior to 9/11 my biggest complaint with the left was that it inculcated victimhood, envy, jealousy, blame, and rage into the populace as campaign strategies to get votes. Those toxins have condensed into an all out war against America, which is the symbol of self reliance, achievement, and opportunity. The terrorists have found fellow travellers in today’s left in that they envy and hate the same thing – America.

I think being a former liberal who is now a conservative is the true definition of neo-conservative – new political ideology which I am happy to ascribe to.

May 22, 2005 - 1:01 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

SBL, Ltd./ko$ are the party bosses. Mr. Thompson’s much belated recognition that the corpse of the progressive movement really does stink does not reach the level of an epiphany. He writes well and feels deeply but as Flenser notes, the depth of the intellectual process involved remains indiscernible. One might wonder if he had ever thought about the progressive FDR interning Japanese while maintaining segregation of draftees during the largest war fought by the Republic. The distinctly non-progressive Harry S Truman managed desegregation of the Armed Forces by Executive Order quite well three years after that conflict. The absolutely non-progressive Dwight D. Eisenhouer not only signed the best Civil Rights legislation that had been enacted to that date but federalized the National Guard and then sent the 101st Airborne to ensure its application. LBJ may have been a bit progressive but the ‘64 Civil Rights Act was as cynical a purchase of a voting bloc as has ever been completed in the Republics history and LBJ was proud to explain it that way to anyone who would listen.

Buddy truly nailed it above. Todays Liberals are truly and absolutely owned in the US and Canada by moneyed interests who see the purchase of the Liberal Party in Canada and the Democratic Party in the US as the best means to achieve the oligarchic interests of a billionaire boys club which knows how to feign being progressive as it purchases the “public intellectuals” who act as its mouthpieces.

It ain’t just Mr. Thompson pulling away – the AFL-CIO is on the verge of a major split and I would not be at all surprised to see the Teamsters take their support to the Reps. Not all of our unions have Red centers and the rape and plunder of members dues is going to be halted. That’s one of the reasons that SBL, Ltd. got such a good deal for the DNC – it just isn’t worth much.

May 22, 2005 - 1:06 pm 30. Buddy Larsen:

Needs to be an discrete and animating idea…something distant from country-club Rockefeller Republicanism…something along the lines of getting a vision back into the educational system. Issues can then have two real sides, other than “we must do this” and “f*ck you”.

May 22, 2005 - 1:21 pm 31. Sandy P:

–America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.—

Grow up and be a parent???

———————-

–At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, “that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up.” A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to “foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe.”–

This is what America has excelled at. We build things up and tear things down at a tremendous speed.

—

As to being a parent, slightly OT, found at Bros Judd, but the IHT link is gone:

(Henning Sussebach, International Herald Tribune, May 21st, 2005)

One in three German men who reach 40 does not have a child. In a recent survey by the Allensbach Institute, Germans were asked what children meant to them. Only 38 percent said “a full life.” Ninety-two percent checked “responsibility” (they have not seen a 4-year-old pretending to play an electric guitar). Asked why they would not have children, only 14 percent said it would be too hard to provide for them. Twenty-seven percent answered, “I don’t want to tie myself down.”

Another study by the Federal Institute for Population Research shows that 26 percent of men aged 20 to 39 (but only 15 percent of women the same age) say they want no children at all.

Men who marry early or have children are regarded as exotic creatures. The same goes for anyone who might, say, work with young people at a fishing club, or still find some thrill in the migration of frogs. That’s so bourgeois, “so yesterday” – at least according to those who set the tone in our cities, where the overarching goal is to be hip and cool.

—-

Socialism – Mutated monarchism – peasant/child wants the king/parent to take care of them.

Don’t we all, life just doesn’t allow it.

May 22, 2005 - 1:40 pm 32. Doug:

“ I mean, crappy motivations are one thing, but not even realizing that you have them is quite something else.

”

Hey,

That makes me a lot better than John F. Kerry!!!

Terrrrrraaasaa!

May 22, 2005 - 1:40 pm 33. Doug:

“Minorities are inherently to be perceived as victims and never as villains.”

Proof:

17 years ago, our son, age 4, understood that there were no bad black people.

…Thanks to Sesame St, etc.

He has not spent 1 minute in a classroom since, except job-related.

May 22, 2005 - 1:52 pm 34. Doug:

That is very sad, but apparently very true, Sandy P.

May 22, 2005 - 1:55 pm 35. Doug:

This,

In Particular:

“Men who marry early or have children are regarded as exotic creatures. The same goes for anyone who might, say, work with young people at a fishing club, or still find some thrill in the migration of frogs. That’s so bourgeois, “so yesterday” – at least according to those who set the tone in our cities, where the overarching goal is to be hip and cool.”

—

…but TV (over 30 years gone now) has not damaged our country at all.

May 22, 2005 - 1:57 pm 36. Doug:

“ Issues can then have two real sides, other than “we must do this” and “f*ck you”.”

—

That means we either radically increase the size of our military, or bring the boys home to enforce your utopia.

May 22, 2005 - 2:00 pm 37. Buddy Larsen:

AKA “the soft bigotry of low expectations”…that glowing and sadly ignored phrase from the wordsmiths at the White House.

May 22, 2005 - 2:00 pm 38. Doug:

“ Issues can then have two real sides, other than “we must do this” and “f*ck you”.”

—

That means we either radically increase the size of our military, or bring the boys home to enforce your utopia.

May 22, 2005 - 2:01 pm 39. Doug:

Roger has a new feature:

It lied to me and said it did not post, then invited me to post.

(you see the result)

May 22, 2005 - 2:03 pm 40. Fresh Air:

Flenser–

Also see the brilliant essay by Ron Rosenbaum in the New York Observer on his departure from the Left.

P.S. I believe Roger’s roman a clef-in-process could be the new gold standard. Horowitz is good, but Orwell he ain’t.

Charlotte–

Hitch classifies himself as a Marxist. Accordingly, Stalin’s atrocities are only of derivative interest to his self-righteousness. Marxism has never been tried, don’t you know…

May 22, 2005 - 2:05 pm 41. Doug:

“ …while maintaining segregation of draftees during the largest war fought by the Republic. ”

—

Rick,

Most of the Black Men that returned had a much clearer vision on the right course for America in the future than any Black Studies Phd.

—

Walter Williams was in right after the transition, I guess.

Lotsa cracker forgot to notice.

He reminded them daily.

UCLA offered him a job.

He made sure it was not because of his race.

It was.

He went elsewhere.

May 22, 2005 - 2:10 pm 42. Doug:

“Horowitz is good, but Orwell he ain’t. ”

Horowitz plus Collier plus a great editor, is pretty damned good.

Now how can we make his columns look like that?

May 22, 2005 - 2:13 pm 43. David Thomson:

ì17 years ago, our son, age 4, understood that there were no bad black people.î

Leftist ideology champions reverse racism. The white dude is always in the wrong. I find it fascinating that I seem to be the only one who openly asserts that Thomas Klocek is probably in deep trouble only because of the whiteness of his skin. Nobody (and I mean nobody!) else has even come close to being this blunt. There is apparently too much fear that one is providing ammunition to the David Dukes of the world. Itís time we address this issue and cease hiding from reality.

May 22, 2005 - 2:17 pm 44. Doug:

Larsen asks,

“Upward mobility–why does it most deviate from the mean, in BOTH directions, in the bluest locations? ”

Because it is not pulled back to the mean while living by traditional values?

May 22, 2005 - 2:24 pm 45. Doug:

Buddy and Rick, et al:

Where/how do the teacher’s unions and public employee unions fit into this picture?

—

Calif you can teach for 5 years and get lifetime medical.

2 Teachers retire at combined 150k plus.

May 22, 2005 - 2:27 pm 46. David Thomson:

ìCalif you can teach for 5 years and get lifetime medical.

2 Teachers retire at combined 150k plus.î

This is another truth that most people prefer to ignore. Todayís leftists are usually very affluent. You slut for the Democratic Party—and you will be well taken care of! Thatís the ticket to the good life. But we earned our advances degrees which allow us this lavish lifestyle, these fools will argue. Bovine excrement, these degrees are often as fraudulent as a three dollar bill.

May 22, 2005 - 2:44 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:

The way California treats double-entry bookkeeping–or maybe the problem is that the idea of ‘money’ as a store of value for future use is too restrictive–it’s a scandal (and probably Gov Shcwartenegzeneggar’s fault) that a teacher can’t get a check for a million bucks at the end of every schoolday.

May 22, 2005 - 2:46 pm 48. Doug:

Buddy,

But you and Rick and others were discussing unions w/regard to politics, pulling away from Dems, etc.

I guess none of that applies to teachers, who are the largest?

May 22, 2005 - 2:52 pm 49. Charlie (Colorado):

Is anyone else following what the argument here is? I keep thinking the comments in this thread *have* a point and I’m just not getting it.

May 22, 2005 - 3:07 pm 50. Buddy Larsen:

The Keith Thompson essay morphed into “up the Democrats”. Shit breakfast morphs into “up the Democrats”.

May 22, 2005 - 3:16 pm 51. PeterUK:

Charlie,

It’s one of those wild Geritol fueled sessions that go on way into the late afternoon down at the Day Centre.

May 22, 2005 - 3:22 pm 52. Buddy Larsen:

Peter, you d*rty B*st*rd you.

May 22, 2005 - 3:25 pm 53. WichitaBoy:

ShrinkWrapped,

I enjoyed your comment. Thank you.

The word “feeling” has to be one of the fuzziest and inaccurate in the English language. When you say “She could not back up her position; it was a ‘feeling’ and there could be no further disusssion“, I think we have to acknowledge that there are many beliefs and thoughts (”feelings”) that all of us possess which we really couldn’t back up either if push came to shove.

This is for two reasons. First, the human mind doesn’t actually think in terms of physical reality, it thinks in terms of mental constructs which are created before the sensory input is even allowed to reach the conscious mind. This happens because the computational complexity of the world far exceeds the computational capacity of the human brain. So even the most basic mental tasks, such as seeing things, occur at an abstract level. Second, there is the significant problem that the more complicated the constructs are, the more abstract they become. In terms of reading the dial on a machine we have reasonable hope of agreeing what it says. When it comes to higher scientific concepts, let alone such complicated constructs as those to be found in politics and religion, it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve general agreement, because we are no longer discussing directly verifiable issues.

When it comes to the situation regarding your relative, we have an entire worldview built upon layers of abstraction, built upon further layers of abstraction. There is very little difference between this mental state and “religion”, though the latter word is usually used as a pejorative by today’s anti-traditionalist media. Consequently, in order to reach some sort of agreement there will have to be some sort of religious conversion. This is obviously very difficult: it is a life-changing event. On the other hand, if one honestly and carefully examines how one came to some of one’s beliefs (abstractions) in the first place, one may find a way out of the morass of cognitive dissonance. If there is anyone who hasn’t yet read neo-neocon’s excellent ongoing series of articles on her own path to enlightenment, I recommend them in the strongest terms.

As for such massive abstractions as “liberal” and “leftist” so casually and so vitriolically tossed around here, I fail to see what use they are, save to imbue the speaker with a pyrrhic sense of self-righteousness. I consider myself a “liberal” more or less in the sense of Keith Thompson’s article, but in addition to favoring gay marriage, abortion rights, opposing capital punishment, etc., I also believe that individuals must take responsibility for their actions and that the Iraq War is necessary and just. These beliefs are not necessarily contradictory. What is hoped to be accomplished with the constant invective against “liberals”? One won’t gain any allies by this means, nor persuade any relatives.

The “leftists” are in massive psychological shock and denial. They need your help, not your hatred.

May 22, 2005 - 3:29 pm 54. Kevin P:

Roger:

I think we are being a bit harsh on the man for being late to the game.It took me 20 years of my adult life before the truth underneath the rhetoric began to smell so badly that I finally had to re-examine the things that I was so wedded to. The second Clinton election I sat out,my first missed vote ever, just because I couldn’t pull the lever under R.When I voted for President Bush I was quiet about it.I think the longer he is away from the cult the more objective he will be about the true origins of his initial beliefs.

May 22, 2005 - 3:38 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

The targeting probably does misfire mostly. Important to distinguish among the cynical puppeteers on the left, and the honest seekers who follow them–the unknowing victims, the 99%.

May 22, 2005 - 3:40 pm 56. Sandy P:

I read something late last year, by an opinion person, I think, about those who “feel.”

We come armed w/facts, but it won’t make any difference.

In short, if I told you the sky was blue, but you feel it’s green, God could come down and tell you it’s blue, but it wouldn’t do any good, because you feel it’s green.

Don’t argue against feelings, don’t waste your time.

There’s nothing you could say or give to change that person’s mind.

May 22, 2005 - 3:42 pm 57. Buddy Larsen:

Someone you like can do no wrong; someone you dislike can do no right. But it may not be so arbitrary, there’s a lotta analysis going on in the subconscious. It’s a “fact”, too.

May 22, 2005 - 3:50 pm 58. David Thomson:

ìThe “leftists” are in massive psychological shock and denial. They need your help, not your hatred.î

Oh please, these Leftists are vile and ruthless towards their perceived enemies. They lie without batting an eyelash. You might want to pretend that they are a bunch of altruistic flower children—but this argument cannot be backed up by evidence. These people have lied and cheated their way to financial success. They are first, last, and foremost, intellectual sluts. The new motto of the Democratic Party should be: ìShow me the money!î Itís nothing more than scam operation to help trial lawyers and other activists to become well to do.

May 22, 2005 - 3:53 pm 59. Doug:

I feel really stupid.

What if that’s also a high quality thought?

—

Now,

How does it work that all these folks that were so smart and insightful as to see through all this eons ago, come here to be enlightened by someone like the rest of us mere mortals that didn’t?

—

(figure I gotta PROVE that Stupid Thought/Feeling)

—

BTW

LOL a lot at Charlie and exchange following.

—

The left has no class or manners.

Screw Them!

May 22, 2005 - 3:53 pm 60. Doug:

Thank you David,

I have made that point to no avail before.

Maybe some folks are in denial that they were not once innocent flower children, but motivated by somethings a little less innocent?

—

I love that argument:

Hitler didn’t get up in the morning planning how to make people have a bad day, only applied to the 100% innocent folks on the left.

They mean well.

Sure did do well.

By themselves.

May 22, 2005 - 3:57 pm 61. flenser:

Charlotte

Many have noted that those who claim love for humanity in the abstract seem to have serious issues with acual humans in the flesh. They cannot forgive them for not matching their ideal.

Shrink Wrapped

Most of the remaining strength of the ìleft-liberalî movement probably stems from peoples fears of the the so-called theocrats. The abolition of slavery, the end of segregation, the elimination of child labor, and a host of other issues which the miltantly secular left has taken credit for were actually the work of people who would nowdays be called religious conservatives. Short of having history taught in our schools again I see no way to reach these people.

PeterUK

Do you think the distinction between left and liberal is a meaningful one? Which camp would you place JS Mill in? Both, I think.

Fresh Air

Radical Son would have been a better polemic with some editing, but maybe not as good an autobiography. Rosenbaum sounds like he has a ways to go. As one of the Freepers said; so close, but yet so far.

May 22, 2005 - 3:57 pm 62. Doug:

“their perceived enemies.”

…hmm,

Who could that be?

May 22, 2005 - 3:59 pm 63. Doug:

Right on about Radical Son.

(using appropriate language, of course)

Some of his columns are a little ragged at times.

May 22, 2005 - 4:01 pm 64. Doug:

How many books are as honest?

May 22, 2005 - 4:01 pm 65. Sandy P:

OT, but w/Gerhard going down, time for me to stick my middle finger briefly into the air:

Via Rantburg, no direct link, but this does fit into the cradle-to-grave part of our conversation:

France and the EU Vote: Oui or Non? Dream On

Summary

French voters decide May 29 whether to approve the proposed EU Constitution.

Public opinion has favored a no vote over the past four weeks. But regardless of how the vote turns out, the French dream of using a united Europe to magnify Paris’ influence globally will remain just that: a dream.

Analysis

The French vote May 29 on whether to approve the European Union’s new constitution. Far from the easy victory the government — and France’s fellow Europeans — expected, however, the constitution’s naysayers have consistently led in opinion polls over the past four weeks.

In a union of 25 states, there is little that everyone can agree on. But one thing our sources across the Continent seem to be in agreement on is this: if the French reject the constitution, the charter dies….

http://www.rantburg.com/popartic…&ID=119752&HC=3

May 22, 2005 - 4:07 pm 66. Doug:

“Someone you like can do no wrong; someone you dislike can do no right.”

—

Wife and I were just talking about young employees that were evidently raised w/great care being exercised not to injure their self esteem.

They like themselves so much apparently, they feel no need to concern themselves w/anything else.

Far be it from me to label them narcissistic.

—

They just need some love and understanding and a quick kick in the rear.

May 22, 2005 - 4:08 pm 67. David Thomson:

ìMaybe some folks are in denial that they were not once innocent flower children, but motivated by somethings a little less innocent?î

In back of their mind was the urge to become well to do. John Edwards is your quintessential Democratic activist. This man is a trial lawyer who has become very wealthy by bamboozling jurors. It is the Democratic party who has set up this scam operation to help these attorneys fatten up their bank accounts. Just take a look at the tenured professors who dominate the soft sciences in our universities. Most of them are idiots. They suck up to the Democrats—and in return are amply rewarded. Itís about the money. Donít let them to tell you anything different.

May 22, 2005 - 4:21 pm 68. Terrye:

When I was a child growing up in Oklahoma in the 50’s and 60’s liberal meant that you admired Martin Luther King and the believed in the civil rights movement.

So perhaps it is understandable that many liberals do not hink the term is something to be ashamed of.

And when many people think of right wing they either think of latin American paramilitary groups or Pat Robertson and theocracy. It is a knee jerk reaction. My brother said all “right wingers” make a big deal out of things like communism and terrorism so they can scare people. I would say that is typical. Never mind the fact that he never actually had to live under communism or suffer death by mutilation at the hands of a ranting jihadi.

In other words these terms are subjective and the more judgment we bring to them the more we alienate people.

Someone like Galloway is an example of politics of prejudice. He is so steeped in preconceived notions and mindless hatred that he can not even answer a simple question. There is nothing simple for these people. Like obsessives that follow the same worn mental path they go round and round and always end up in the same place.

I think what is happening to some of us is that we stopped long enough to actually see the world in real terms.

The people of Iraq deserve a chance to live the kind of life all of us take for granted. If they have that chance, we are all better off.

May 22, 2005 - 4:27 pm 69. Buddy Larsen:

I must admit, I enjoyed the Edwards speech–the “Two Americas”…I could always get a laff with “Yeah, the one that already knows you’re full of sh*t, and the one that’s learning”.

May 22, 2005 - 4:37 pm 70. Syl:

Excellent points, WichitaBoy. (I’m having my own self-debate over abstractions of abstractions in simply trying to assess where _I_ stand on various issues, let alone where anybody else does. It’s disconcerting.)

“if one honestly and carefully examines how one came to some of one’s beliefs (abstractions) in the first place, one may find a way out of the morass of cognitive dissonance.”

I feel like a three-year-old (or whatever age this manifests itself) always asking ‘why?’. Or, rather, asking my mother, for example, ‘Why do you believe that? and answering her answer with a further ‘Why?’ ad infinitum. Only mental conversations, I must add, since I would never dare to ask such a thing of her…or my ex, or my ex best girlfriend.

May 22, 2005 - 4:40 pm 71. syn:

One has to wonder if today’s Left would have persecuted Dr. King for his connection to the church and using God as a means to inspire the civil rights movement by endlessly labeling, much like we hear about President Bush, the good man as a raving right-wing theocratic nut who eats babies for breakfast?

These days, the Left most probably would have persecuted Dr. King for having the gall to utter the G-word when he spoke from the pulpit.

The Left isn’t about Liberalism.

May 22, 2005 - 4:45 pm 72. PeterUK:

Flenser,

Whilst John Stewart Mill was leftward leaning,he was influenced by Adam Smith,certainly the man who wrote

The essay On Liberty defends of the thesis “that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection;” I doubt if he was a Marxist.

May 22, 2005 - 5:19 pm 73. flenser:

PeterUK

I’m sure Mill’s was no Marxist. But the question is whether he was a leftist in the current sense. Modern leftists have abandoned the notion that the state should seize the means of production. Nobody would say that the current Democratic party embodies Marxism, but many would say it is still dependent on leftist ideas, chiefly radical egalitarianism and individualism, plus a belief in the power of managerial elites and a deep suspicion of religion.

WichitaBoy

‘What is hoped to be accomplished with the constant invective against “liberals”?’

I’m not sure what invective you are referring to. Perhaps you mean this?

I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives…the left’s anemic, smirking response to Iraq’s election in January… became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left’s strong suit.)…I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan.

May 22, 2005 - 5:42 pm 74. Fresh Air:

Wichita–

Even though you don’t fit conveniently into a ready label, the vast majority of the power brokers in the Democratic party do: 95% of the delegates to their convention opposed the Iraq war. I take it as a given that a similar percentage of posters on this board seem to believe the war was just and right. Thus, it would seem appropriate to attempt to explain the difference somehow.

Insofar as resolute opposition to American military power abroad regardless of its merits has become a valence quality of leftist/liberal orthodoxy, I don’t see where expressing contempt for those who wear that label today as misplaced. (It really is a valid syllogism in that sense.) Yes, it is an exercise in self-righteousness to some degree, but it is one that is grounded in the principles of liberty and freedom. That the vast majority of left/liberals seem to have shed these principles is disturbing and I would argue worthy of condemnation, even if a few noble liberals (in the classic sense of the word) are tarred with the same brush.

If the distinction was so meaningful among mainstream Democrats, they wouldn’t have allowed Joe Lieberman to have been savaged during the primaries last year.

May 22, 2005 - 5:52 pm 75. WichitaBoy:

David Thomson,

Please excuse me, but I must disagree. You’re talking about millions upon millions of people; they couldn’t possibly all be thinking in one single way. In my experience, painting with a very broad brush, there are indeed two distinct groups of Democrats. There are those who honestly believe that the governmental programs (nationalized health care, etc.) advocated by the statists within the party are truly intended to help the poor, instituted with the best intentions. Then there are those whom you describe, the ultra-cynical who prey on the ideals of others. The Democratic party contains at once the most idealistic and the most cynical elements of society. Not everyone is ultra-cynical and selfish. It’s not all about money and power. Many people do have a heart.

Syl,

Thank you. I must say that it’s always a great pleasure to read your posts and I look forward to them every day (along with a whole lot of other folks). Your recent partial hiatus on this board has diminished it’s value to me. If you’re posting somewhere else on a regular basis, please let me know.

May 22, 2005 - 5:57 pm 76. PeterUK:

Flenser,

The Left have not abandoned their redistributionist,interventionist mentality,as long as it does not affect them..the means used now are regulatory,generally by self financing NGOs.

The left have not budged an inch from interfering in public education, the aim of monopolising health care and a myriad environmental and social issues.

Political correctness is a construct of the left,who owns your language now? How free are you to speak the truth about subjects such as immigration,be a Republican in Academia or the Media

The left are still there,they have just learned to use different methods.They are not liberals in any true sense of the word since only freedoms that they define are are accepted by them as valid.

The left are not liberal in the sense of extending to contrary opinion the simple courtesy of having merit.

May 22, 2005 - 6:10 pm 77. Doug:

“There are those who honestly believe that the governmental programs (nationalized health care, etc.) advocated by the statists within the party are truly intended to help the poor, instituted with the best intentions.”

—

And they are not about to let the reality that it doesn’t work that way interfere with their good intentions.

Sometimes makes one have second thoughts about the meaning of good intentions.

May 22, 2005 - 6:10 pm 78. Doug:

“monopolising health care”

Monopolies are a bad thing.

Monopolies are a good thing.

Things are so confusing.

May 22, 2005 - 6:13 pm 79. Doug:

What if someone is not in favor of legal theft?

ans.

They are overruled by those with better intentions.

May 22, 2005 - 6:15 pm 80. Doug:

What if a Christian does not want their child of 8 learning the ins and outs of Homo, Hetero, and Oral Sex?

ans

They have no right to choose:

Pay Up!

May 22, 2005 - 6:17 pm 81. Doug:

“Yes, it is an exercise in self-righteousness to some degree”

—

Fresh Air makes judgements.

I don’t like him.

He’s gonna force a theocracy on us, I bet.

May 22, 2005 - 6:24 pm 82. Doug:

Taxes for my neighbor’s Viagra are an abstraction.

I think I’ll ponder that for the rest of the afternoon and see if I can figure out the meaning of life.

Right now it looks like it must be someone else’s erection.

May 22, 2005 - 6:31 pm 83. Fresh Air:

Doug–

Prayers will be announced from loudspeakers four times a day, and adulterers and those who float bibles in toilets will be beheaded or stoned to death (their choice).

If we’re going have a theocracy, why reinvent the wheel?

May 22, 2005 - 6:42 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:

Hey, no contest, stoned to death.

May 22, 2005 - 6:49 pm 85. Fresh Air:

With stones Buddy, with stones.

May 22, 2005 - 6:54 pm 86. Buddy Larsen:

rats

May 22, 2005 - 6:59 pm 87. Cutler:

While he is certainly late to the game, it is this sort of commentary that imo converts people most effectively. Someone like them, describing emotions that they likewise feel, but are still too embarrassed to admit.

May 22, 2005 - 7:06 pm 88. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Something about this story seems so familiar, wait that’s my story!

May 22, 2005 - 7:19 pm 89. neo-neocon:

I applaud Thompson, however recent his conversion. After all, my own came only a few years ago, so who am I to talk? I hereby humbly welcome him to the ranks of neo-neocons!

I think we need to be careful in discussions like this to be mindful of the distinction between leftists and liberals. Yes, there isn’t a clear and sharp line between the two, but there is still a difference. My guess is that Mr. Thompson, like me, was always more of a liberal than a leftist, and thus didn’t have quite so far to come as leftists would.

But on the question of why it takes so long to change one’s mind–well, that’s one of the major points of discussion in my “Mind is a difficult thing to change” series. There is nothing easy or simple about changing an entire belief system. Many never do it, whatever the evidence, because the cost is just too high.

Strangely enough, I just started reading Horowitz’s book “Radical Son” today. I wrote this post earlier today on the persistance of the leftist Utopian dream, as described in Horowitz’s book.

May 22, 2005 - 7:32 pm 90. neo-neocon:

Cutler, a while back I would have agreed with you that a story from a guy like Thompson might be especially likely to “convert” others. But my personal experience is that such a tale only tends to convert the already-converted. Others respond with great bitterness, because of their sense of betrayal.

When I tried to talk about my own change of mind, prefacing the discussion by the words “I’ve always been a liberal Democrat, but…” the response I often received was extremely hostile. It used to surprise me, but no more. If you were always a conservative, people on the left/liberal end of things feel they can write you off. If you were once one of them, you are far more threatening, not far more convincing, I’m afraid.

May 22, 2005 - 7:37 pm 91. Terrye:

Wichita Boy is right.

There really are two distinct groups of Democrats. I know was in one of them for years.

I thought that the function of government was to do the things for people they could not do for themselves. I have come to realize that it does not really work that way all the time, but there are sincere people who really look at the role of government that way.

And then of course there are the social issues that many of us would disagree on.

I think that issues like national security and immigration take people to the right and some social issues take people the other way.

And then there are things like stem cell research that I don’t even feel competent to make a rational judgment about.

I think the Democrats have fractured and the extreme and more paranoid elements are overwhelming the moderate people that stay in the party for reasons that have more to do with social justice than Osama Bin Laden.

May 22, 2005 - 7:45 pm 92. Charlie (Colorado):

…Democratic party embodies Marxism, but many would say it is still dependent on leftist ideas, chiefly radical egalitarianism and individualism, …

Huh? Since when have egalitarianism and individualism been “leftist” ideas?

May 22, 2005 - 7:56 pm 93. Charlie (Colorado):

Buddy: Hey, no contest, stoned to death.

Fresh: With stones Buddy, with stones.

Buddy: rats.

Please tell me you guys set that up.

May 22, 2005 - 7:59 pm 94. Buddy Larsen:

Nah…shpontaneoush.

May 22, 2005 - 8:06 pm 95. Buddy Larsen:

“Huh? Since when have egalitarianism and individualism been “leftist” ideas?”

There is that notion of a Jeffersonian Ideal that is radical egalitarian, individualist, and liberal. Many leftists claim it. In fact, it’s the basis of the communitarian schism, wherein ya couldn’t be a pinch-lipped Leninist and party down at the disco at the same time–unless you had a cover story. That was the cover story.

May 22, 2005 - 8:16 pm 96. flenser:

Charlie

You left out “radical”. Since the terms left and right entered the political lexicon, around the time of the French Revolution.

What kind of writing are you semi-successful at?

May 22, 2005 - 8:28 pm 97. Buddy Larsen:

And the Right is still laboring under the Royalist, or reactionary, image. Of course, some of the right IS reactionary…but not my part. Royalist recognition of tradition is cool, but not across the board. Intent is important. Old money is fine so long as it doesn’t monopolize itself. That’s what’s offensive about the Business Rountable…big-company CEOs of mostly old-line industrials, mostly Democratic I believe because that’s the party least likely to get outta the way of the commercial vitality that (horrors) raises entrepreneurial competition.

May 22, 2005 - 8:47 pm 98. Buddy Larsen:

The regulatory maze is a neat tautology…instead of attempting to start a business, just go to work for the regulators. Easier, and you get benefits.

May 22, 2005 - 8:52 pm 99. flenser:

Exactly, Buddy. (Just don’t let on that we want to install Prince William on the throne in Washington.)

May 22, 2005 - 8:53 pm 100. flenser:

(Oops.)

May 22, 2005 - 8:54 pm 101. Buddy Larsen:

Once everybody is a regulator, we will have reached perfection, the Regulation Way. Of course there will be no beans.

May 22, 2005 - 8:55 pm 102. Buddy Larsen:

Ahh, you gave it away, flenser. Now we’ll have to put clothespins on our noses, grab a shovel, and make old Louie the head of state.

May 22, 2005 - 8:57 pm 103. Rick Ballard:

Continuance of the Hanoverian line is the main thing. William will do but lets not forget that their are dozens of Victoria’s descendants who would work as well.

May 22, 2005 - 9:03 pm 104. Rick Ballard:

Oops, forgot the toast.

Up the Rockingham Whigs and damn Lord North.

May 22, 2005 - 9:06 pm 105. Buddy Larsen:

I’m sure a Hanoverian Restoration could be worked around that dadgum tea tax that has caused all these two centuries of pout.

May 22, 2005 - 9:07 pm 106. flenser:

True. For some reason, Queens have worked out well for the Brits. Maybe they have a spare female royal they could let us have. I’ll ask PeterUK.

Plus, the Dems would love a female head of state. Always thinking of others, I am.

May 22, 2005 - 9:09 pm 107. Buddy Larsen:

And to gild the lily, Robespierre would LOVE the UN/DNC. And they, him.

May 22, 2005 - 9:14 pm 108. flenser:

Righto, chaps. I’m off to bed. We can deal with the revolting peasants on the morrow.

May 22, 2005 - 9:20 pm 109. Buddy Larsen:

They could cloister happily on Turtle Bay high up in the Last Domino Building and write ten million rules of fair governance while far below in the streets the tumbrels carted the entire populace off to the guillotine. And think nothing of it.

Everybody’s dead? Sacre Bleu! Oh, well, time to hand out the estates, somebody’s gotta own ‘em!

May 22, 2005 - 9:30 pm 110. Buddy Larsen:

me too…dammit, forgot the sit-ups again.

May 22, 2005 - 9:36 pm 111. Syl:

LOL you guys!

Thanks, WichitaBoy. Computer troubles and a need to get away from it all for a while. Also flummoxed over where I fit in on every issue and realize it doesn’t matter. We only have two parties and I agree with much more on the R side than the D now. So that’s that.

Anyway, some days I simply don’t feel like thinking (or attempting to) so much

May 22, 2005 - 10:09 pm 112. Cutler:

Well neo-neocon, you speak from experience…I can’t help but hope, however, that there’s a few who are shaken by the reality that they can’t so easily discount you or Mr. Thompson.

May 22, 2005 - 10:44 pm 113. Kevin P:

Roger:

Earlier in the thread someone questioned what the modern left would think of MLK. There is no way to know what he would be like in today’s society but I read a great article about him and the very faith that allowed him to walk into danger and challenge evil unarmed are the very things that some on the left find delusional and a sign of stupidity. His faith in the afterlife allowed him not to be overly concerned about what haapened to him. His belief that God has controll of his life and that there is a purpose for everything allowed him to accept and face bravely the fact that any pain and suffering that might come his way would not be just a quirk of fate and that God would not give him anything that was beyond his strength as long as he relied on God. I am not a pacifist and I don’t think his non violent approach applies to every situation but his reliance on that tactic was perfect for the situation in the South at that time.Simply put, the faith that allowed MLK to achieve what he did would be ridiculed and scorned by much of the left today.

May 22, 2005 - 10:46 pm 114. drydock:

Wow! Thompson had the balls to denounce Stalin at a lefty dinner party! With that level of bravery maybe he should sign for a tour over in Iraq.

May 23, 2005 - 12:42 am 115. Kevin P:

Drydock:

The “well, why don’t you sign up for battle if you think this war is right” banality is one of the favorite cliches on the web today. I don’t know what Drydocks view of the war is but if he buys into the “The war in Iraq is illegal and Bush is a war criminal” and all the other favorite cliches of the DU crowd then by his own logic he should be joining in with his brothers to battle the imperialistic US war for oil crowd and if he doesn’t then he is a coward and a hypocrite who can’t discuss the war and other topics. If this is not your worldview I apoligize.If it is then your sophomoric na na na style of argument should be reserved for your intro to poli sci course in junior college.

May 23, 2005 - 10:39 am 116. Mike Walsh:

Very good posts, by and large, especially, Buddy, your first above, and that of Shrinkwrapped.

This afternoon I passed a notice board on which one of the utterly clueless members of my religious order’s “Justice and Peace” office posted a glowing article about Yassir Arafat. I was so mad I was ready to spit. So I did, right on the mug of Ol’ Fish-Face. The chief characteristic of the Left is its preening moral vanity. Another is its solipsism, carried to the extreme of co-dependency. The Arafat posting was no surprise. But I think a lot of people, a la Thompson, are beginning to wake up.

Regards to Roger, et al.

May 25, 2005 - 7:31 pm 117. Buddy Larsen:

Thanks, Mike. I think the PNV (preening moral vanity) is what fills the vacuum of the solipsism.

May 26, 2005 - 6:44 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: