Neo-neocon has written again (and eloquently, as usual) of her favorite topic, political change - who makes it, why and what happens. This time (in response to an essay by “Bookworm“) she is dealing with the unease many feel (especially blue staters) about coming out to their friends about their political views:
The second reason I tell friends [about my change] is actually more important, because it’s not about me. It’s this: if I don’t speak up, and if people like me (and Bookworm, and her other crypto-con friends) don’t speak up and “out” ourselves, then it simply perpetuates the myths of those who consider The Other Side to be monstrous.
Yes, some will consider you an awful person if you tell the truth about your current beliefs. But your speaking up may make others wonder about their preconceptions. If Republicans and neocons and even liberal hawks are considered the absolute Other, they can continue to be demonized and typecast. If it’s you, on the other hand, who’s the neocon–and not some stranger–you, that nice mother down the street who bakes the brownies; you, the one with the jokes and the helping hand; you, who’s always been so smart and so kind–then how can all of Bush’s supporters be cruel and stupid?
It’s easy to move through life in a liberal bubble if everyone around who disagrees is silent and invisible. The only way to change that is to challenge it by standing up, speaking out, and bursting the bubble. It’s very difficult; but you may find, as I did, that most of your worthwhile relationships survive the blow, although many are never quite the same again.
Indeed!
And neo-neocon does not even blog under her real name. As one who does, I can tell her that the level of “sticker shock” is of a yet higher level (she probably knows that - hence the nom de blog). To be honest, however, when I started blogging almost three years ago now, I had little thought, despite whatever notoriety I had as a novelist and screenwriter, that anyone was paying any real attention. In fact, I started blogging just to promote a book and did not give whatever political change I was undergoing that much attention. I mean who could care, right?
Wrong.
A surprising number of people I knew were paying a great deal of attention. Hardly anyone I talked to in Hollywood did not know “something had happened to Roger Simon, the man who created Moses Wine.” Let’s leave aside for the moment my contention that they had changed but I hadn’t. I was disturbed. No one likes to be a pariah, but there I was. To many of my friends I was a threatening figure, although they didn’t want to admit it, so chalked my current views up to my neuroses or whatever. You’d have to ask them. Once, when blogging at the Republican convention, I ran into an old left/liberal friend covering the same event for the usual suspects. He laughed at my presence and said “You’ll be back some day,” meaning those views were a temporary aberration. (There were other far more insulting moments that I will go into at another time.) I winced and wondered.
Now, I don’t. The truth, as I gradually learned, is there is no “back” to go back to, even if I so desired. The left n’existe pas. It’s over. There’s no there there, as Gertrude famously said - only a boring and aging social club trying to preserve their perks. It won’t work. Neo-neocon doesn’t have to worry as much as she thinks she does, nor does the yet more apprehensive, though immensely sympathetic, “Bookworm” she quotes. Although I still think “sisterhood is powerful” and all that, this is not about men and women (as Bookworm supposes). It’s about common sense. Pardon my bluntness, but screw on some cojones. If you lose friends who are so pathetically stupid (and mired in projection) to think world affairs revolve around the putative lack of intelligence of George Bush (who did better at Yale than John Kerry anyway, as the New York Times, of all places, informed us), those friends probably are not nearly as bright as you thought they were - certainly nowhere near as emotionally or morally sophisticated. Also, they have a stong streak of cowardice. As neo-neocon knows well and has written extensively, these people are far less willing to examine their assumptions than the Bookworms of the world for fear of their own personality disintegrations. And maybe, if truth be told, they do have something to be afraid of in that regard. That, far more than ostracism, is the tragic dilemma which we must all confront on a daily basis.
PJM Home
58 Comments
1. David:I have been very lucky. I am an academic and through the years I have gone from being a Liberal Republican to a libertarian. As large a change as many of these people have taken. Yet I have always been regarded as, well nuts. SO I got to have my politics and my friends.
Dec 30, 2005 - 11:31 pm 2. Frederick:“…these people are far less willing to examine their assumptions than the Bookworms of the world for fear of personality disintegration.”
Well, some people likely are having a hard time holding it all together. It’s hard work believing at the same time that you’re too nice to hate anyone and you hate Bush, that you have a sophisticated, nuanced view of the world and that Republicans are just evil, that you’re patriotic and America ’s enemies are on the side of right, that people all deserve respect and those red state redneck hicks are beneath contempt, that you believe in democracy and that there are so many inferior people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and that everything in the NYT is right and America doesn’t seem to be losing in Iraq or having an economic collapse. And it’s getting harder all the time. To know that everyone agrees with you and then be told that someone doesn’t can just be the last straw.
Dec 31, 2005 - 12:43 am 3. dsmtoday:What I find hilarious out here in California is that after I beat down coworkers with basic facts they should have known (Clinton bombed Iraq???), they make the claim that it is okay for me to vote for Bush, because I’ve obviously thought about it a lot, but those ignorant unthinking Red Stater bible-thumping hicks shouldn’t be allowed to vote Bush. These coworkers think they are liberally enlightened, but they are actually some of the most bigoted close-minded people I know.
Out here in Cali, you get a lot farther with the tag libertarian than republican. Most of the people *I* know who consider themselves republican are actually closer on the national scale to libertarian. Social conservatism has been pretty much wiped out in Cali (at least in the big cities), so such a blurring makes sense.
Dec 31, 2005 - 12:43 am 4. Yehudit:Frederick, you left out a few:
1) The Black Civil Rights Movement was your activist inspiration, but when millions of Iraqis brave bombs in order to vote, they are unwitting puppets of the Bush regime.
2) You fervently support the self-determination of all Third World peoples, but not if they determine they want a Western democracy. Likewise you believe in equal rights for women and gays, but only in cultures that already have them. Women and gays from ancient Third World cultures are brainwashed by globalization if they want equal rights.
3) You think Americans are arrogant and insensitive towards the rest of the world, telling everyone else how they should live, but you know that Third World people who Westernize their society are not acting in their best interests.
4) If Saddam was a horrible oppressive dictator, and George Bush got rid of him, you can’t bear to conclude that Bush did something good, so you have to conclude that Saddam wasn’t that bad. (I’ve actually had liberals say this to me.) See #1.
5) You believe that most Palestinians want peace, but they are under the thumb of the small minority who are terrorists, but Israel is oppressing Palestinians by killing those terrorists. (I was called a racist on a liberal Jewish listserv for pointing out that Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by killing the people who mastermind suicide bombings.)
I could go on.
I remember in Steven Vincent’s book, the Iraqis he is hanging out with call the human rights visitors “the People of the Slogans” and the “Oh My God crowd.”
Dec 31, 2005 - 2:01 am 5. Terrye:Some of the most small minded and provincial people I know are liberals. That is why I left the left or the left left me, whichever.
They say the kinds of things about red staters that a bigot would say about blacks or hispanics.
They tend to be absolutists when it comes to the constitutional rights of criminals and terrorists and kind of wobbly when it comes to standing up to bad guys who might actually lob off your head.
Bush is a safe target.
Dec 31, 2005 - 2:05 am 6. Yehudit:When I came out as a Bush voter, people here in NYC already had a condescending attitude to Texans, so they said “oh you voted for him because you are a Texan.” I pointed out that I had voted for Gore in 2000. Then they said, “Oh you just like to be controversial.”
Pretty insulting, right? I think they couldn’t bear to consider that maybe I had real reasons for voting for him. Even if they didn’t agree with my reasons, they were scared to think any might exist.
Dec 31, 2005 - 2:08 am 7. JBR:Slightly OT I have a story that people may enjoy. On my way to work recently (I was on Lexington Ave. near 62nd Street in Manhattan) I overheard this guy saying how we helped Saddam kill all the people that he killed and that his elections were rigged just like ours. So I turned around and asked him, “If there were an election in this country between Saddam and Bush, who would you vote for?” Without any hesitation, he said Saddam. That is the face of today’s Democrats ó so blinded by hatred of Bush that they’d rather have a mass-murdering tyrant as president than Bush.
Dec 31, 2005 - 3:10 am 8. Huan:people who are not tolerant and respectful of differences in opinions, even on hot item topics like politics or religion, are not worth the friendships.
Dec 31, 2005 - 3:26 am 9. Richard Nieporent:Well if we are telling stories I have one for you. A number of years ago I was going to a talk given by the National Jewish Democratic Council (don’t ask!). I ran into one of the organizers in the parking lot. She is a member of the National Council of Jewish Women (a very leftist organization). The parking lot was next to a basketball court. She called me aside and whispered to me that I should be careful walking through the parking lot. As she spoke to me she pointed to the teenagers playing basketball and gave me a knowing look. Yes they were of the black persuasion. This very leftist individual did not see the hypocrisy of her actions.
The talk given by the National Jewish Democratic Council was in support of Hillary’s planned run for the Senate in New York. In the question and answer session I asked how they could justify their support for her in light of the fact that she had just kissed Arafat’s wife after she accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian women and children. Not surprisingly they didn’t see any conflict with their supposed support for Israel and Hillary’s actions.
Oh and by the way one of the major issues for the National Jewish Democratic Council is their support for separation of church and state. No, they don’t see the irony of their position.
Dec 31, 2005 - 6:11 am 10. scott:Perhaps a bit off the subject,but Owen Glieberman of Entertainment Weekly named “Syriana”as one of the 5 worst films of 2005.Haven’t seen that before!Then again,he named “Munich”the best.
Dec 31, 2005 - 6:54 am 11. jedrury:Coming from a family of Democrats, being a Republican is an act of independence and self definition. I went back to my basic logic classes and my Jesuitical trained thought processes to learn to think for myself. With admitted arrogance, I concluded that my politics are mine alone. Those views matured through a rejection of cant, a sceptical adherence to spotting political talk [the talk of politicians of either stripe is mostly inane and unimportant as are those expressed on TV] and a confidence that one’s political views must mature and change over time. Defending your political beliefs and supporting George W. Bush and his policies in this day and age often becomes an act of losing friends and unfortunately isolation.
Dec 31, 2005 - 7:37 am 12. Ric Locke:The situation is very simple. But it’s one of those things, almost a definitional example of something, where “very simple” means “very hard”. I will start with an analogy from my own experience.
I spent the first third of my life being gratuitously cruel to black people. But that was never how we characterized it to ourselves. We had an elaborate set of rationalizations and justifications for our behavior, and according to those rationalizations and justifications we were good guys — at worst the measures we took were necessary evils, things we would prefer not to do but which were required by the dynamics of the situation.
This is not to excuse or condone either the actions or the worldview that supported them. Quite the contrary, in fact; the worldview was what was actually evil; the actions taken based on it were simply derivative. And if, looking from outside, you thought it was hard to overcome that prejudice and bigotry, from the other side it was even more difficult, because we had to accept the proposition that we were the ones in black hats, that what we firmly believed (and which gave us status based on caring and kindness) was in fact vile. Such acceptance, such a change of course, is very, very hard. (I hope I have managed it. From time to time I find evidence in my own thought patterns that I have not, fully, and it takes constant vigilance to keep it from appearing in public.)
The international Left spent three-quarters of a century bending and twisting liberal and socialist ideals into justification, enablement, and aggrandizement of the Soviet Tsars. Soviet propaganda aided in that effort, but in large part it was driven by theory and egotism, not to mention a soupcon of wishful thinking, and it led to some remarkable distortions. As a single egregious example, for the entirety of its existence the USSR was blatantly and aggressively imperialist, maintaining occupied buffer states and seeking constantly to expand its influence; but since it was (by self-declaration) Socialist, its activities could not be so characterized. Thus expansionist military adventures had to be described as “wars of national liberation”, mass murder of dissidents came to be “elimination of class enemies”, and destruction of productive capacity was “realizing the dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Self-willed, elitist, murderous, rapacious tyrants were, of necessity, “liberators”. And, since capitalists were by definition imperialists, opening a McDonalds became “cultural imperialism”.
What we see today is very largely transference. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but the actions of the Islamists are remarkably similar to what the USSR actually did under cover of its faux-Socialist rhetoric. The Left responds by transferring the rationales and justifications formerly used to support the Soviet regime to the new one. Osama bin Laden opposes the United States; he is therefore a “liberator” to be supported by the Left, just as Che Guevara was. Zarqawi must, of necessity, be a good Socialist defender of the Working Class — after all, he opposes the Capitalist Imperium. Realizing that this is not the case would require that the Left also realize that they and their heroes are actually the villains of the piece — that Che was a murderer and torturer, for instance.
Admitting that one is a villain is hard. It is therefore resisted, quite forcefully in many cases. Even neocons like Roger have not yet fully faced up to it, and I don’t see that happening any time soon; there is, after all, no liberal movement to call them to account, only conservatives repeating arguments from the Fifties and Sixties that have already been disparaged and discounted. But until the Left realizes and internalizes that it’s been screwing up worse and worse for over a century the preconceptions will continue to distort the political dialogue.
Regards,
Ric
Dec 31, 2005 - 8:20 am 13. Peg Kaplan:Roger, I often think that you, and I, and all the others who tend to believe as you do about at least some of the topics of the day, are really not the ones who “left” the left. In reality, it is those who still call themselves “liberals” or “leftists” who have spurned the underlying principles of their supposed political class.
Many moons ago, I chose my college, U of WI, because I believed it to be a place that upheld liberal values and principles. What were they? Ideas that we should have free speech and the ability to air our thoughts. That people should be judged on the basis of their character - and not the color of their skin. That all people - not simply Americans - deserved to live in a free society, vote, and enjoy a decent job.
In today’s world, however, I see way too many so-called liberals who wish to stop speech that isn’t “PC” … who think that those who wish to ignore race are in actuality the racists … and that people living in another nation do not deserve to be liberated, or have jobs, if it means that in our nation, some lives will be sacrificed or a few jobs lost.
I dunno, Roger. Call us “neo-cons” or whatever else label you wish. I still believe that we are the ones exhibiting what used to be considered “liberalism”. - These faux-liberals of today are sad remnants of what used to be an admirable collection of those who fought for human rights and decency.
Dec 31, 2005 - 8:32 am 14. Silicon valley Jim:It’s this: if I don’t speak up, and if people like me (and Bookworm, and her other crypto-con friends) don’t speak up and “out” ourselves, then it simply perpetuates the myths of those who consider The Other Side to be monstrous.
Absolutely. I don’t think that there’s much question that William F. Buckley’s obvious charm, erudition, and intelligence had much to do with the ascendance of conservatism. I remember back in my somewhat-lefty days reading an interview in Playboy (insert joke here about why I was reading it) with WFB, and I was astonished at his good humor and the fact that every sentence was clear and grammatically correct. Small things, perhaps, but each of us can be a counter-example to the stereotype of conservatives as unintelligent, uneducated bigots.
Dec 31, 2005 - 8:35 am 15. LeoCon:I distinctly remember something clicking in my head on the terrible day when the towers fell, my whole life crashing down with them. “Your whole life has been a lie. Your whole life has been a lie. Your whole life has been a lie. Your whole life has been a lie.”
The phrase repeated over and over in my head.
I remember when I first told my wife, a moonbat of moonbats, that I had decided to switch teams. She looked at me with a degree of fury that still causes the hairs on the back of my neck to stand up. She then launched a BDS-fueled diatribe, equating him with everyone from Hitler to Idi Amin to Hannibal Lechter. It was stunning how alive I felt as I saw how easily I could flip her switch. i attained an air of self-satisfaction I hadn’t had in years.
Unlike the two women brave Roger writes about, I have embraced my new found life with great aplomb. The old LLL me was too timid to let my son know that I was uncomfortable when he flaunted his sexuality in front of me. The “new, improved” Leo wasn’t afraid to tell him to keep his “gayness” to himself. I never really liked it in my face and, thankfully, I had the cajones to finally tell him. Afraid of my gay son. Imagine that. Thus was the life of a moonbat.
Thanks to 9/11 I have also changed my viewpoint on just about everything political. I now see that global warming is a farce, understand that we’ve coddled the poor and the minorities for far too long, despise the European-mindset (I used to love to travel there — no more!!!), want the government 100% OUT of my wallet and realize that freedom really isn’t free. We are at war not only with ROPers, but also the liberuls who are plotting EVERY DAY and EVERY MINUTE on new ways to weaken our country, corrode our culture and bastardize everything that makes this country great.
I only wish it didn’t take 43 years and the evil that is Osama Bin Laden for me to figure all of that out.
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH!
p.s. JBR, the same thing happened to me recently but the moonbat told me that they would prefer Osama Bin Laden as president! They are just too deranged to be believed!
Dec 31, 2005 - 9:06 am 16. heather:So, I’m back from Christmas celebration with my daughter and her family (FOUR children!!! ALL incredibly beautiful and smart and witty and talented!!!). I am particularly smug because Canada is becoming more “European” in its birth rate (ie, lower and lower.)
And best wishes to Roger and everyone else here: Happy Winter Holidays and Merry Christmas too. On the last, it seems to me that wishing a “Merry Christmas” to Jewish secularists such as Roger is not as polite or as a propos as “Happy Holidays”, (the latter “holy days” includes Channukah, and every other holy mid winter celebration…)
And back to the topic at hand: try “coming out” in Canada… as blue a country as France. As my nieces and nephews fulminate about the Evil Imperialist Amerikkans, my most successful ploy has been to note that they had better clean up Canada’s backyard of rampant political corruption before they sling stones across the border. And they have been very surprised to hear of Canada’s proud contribution as an ally to the Good Guys in WWII, and its amazing achievements in WWI.
In fact, the bottom line is empirical reality: the USA has been successful in Iraq. The USA is the most energetic and successful country IN THE WORLD, because of its low taxes and its personal freedom and rights to property ownership, its strong federal system, etc etc.
Also: did you know that the per capita income of African immigrants (to the USA - not Canada) ($20,100) sharply outranked that of Asian immigrants ($16,700) or Central-American immigrants ($9,400) by the late 1990s. African immigrants also earn much more than native-born Americans ($14,400 per capita.) This nugget is from Joel Kotkin’s article on New Orleans in The American Enterprise (www.theamericanenterprise.org).
And so it goes: I am a “neo con” because that particular ‘world view’ matches empirical reality.
Dec 31, 2005 - 9:18 am 17. Lisa:I have been a longtime fan of your site, but never commented before. It has been quite a challenge “coming out” in Los Angeles especially being in a typically new age field of bodyworking. Clients just assume that you are one of them (LLL). I am sure I have lost a few clients after I told them I voted for Bush and approve of his policies. My outlook is that I am better off without them!
I recently had an email exchange with a reform Rabbi from Denver. He will be marrying my sister in Mexico. She told me how cool he was and that we went to camp with him in Indiana. I googled him and found the temple he worked at. On the site you could access his sermons, so I looked around a bit. I couldn’t believe what I saw he had whole sermons dedicated to slamming President Bush as a liar because no WMD’s were found and the usual BS on the left. There was another one pondering when Cindy Sheehan was gonna be able to talk to the Pres. It was so disgusting that it made my blood boil. I sent him an email saying how shocked and concerned I was that he was misinforming(wanted to call him a liar but restrained myself) his entire congregation and included the wonderful chocolate cake post from Dr. Sanity. His response? A whole two line whopper thanking me for taking the time to contact him and agreeing to disagree on our countries leadership and their policies. I bet he didn’t even read past the first sentence!
Why can’t our supposed tradition of seperation of church from state work both ways? Jews who cannot recognize and accept evil and fight it actively are absolutely the worst! It really helps me understand how the Holocaust was allowed to happen.
Sorry for the rant! It makes me feel better to know I am not the only sane independent thinker in Los Angeles. Keep up the insightful posts!
Dec 31, 2005 - 9:52 am 18. heather:And another thought, for the Anointed on the West Coast: In a further move to ’separate church from state’: I guess they will have to re-name their cities. San Diego; Los Angeles; San Francisco; Sacramento; San Pedro.
BAD!!!
Dec 31, 2005 - 10:05 am 19. ForNow:I clicked onto this thread with the expectation of having something worth adding, but this is an excellent thread. But I’ll give it a shot. For what it’s worth.
Conservatives (except black conservatives) have not, by and large, suffered from such vigorous and impenetrable discrimination as blacks have in the past, but that doesn’t mean that we conservatives, those of us in leftist or contemporary “liberal” milieus, have nothing to learn from Jackie Robinson’s towering example. As the one open conservative known to possibly dozens on the left, you function, like it or not, as something of an ambassador. Be at your best with libs and leftists, show strength of character and personal generosity, and competence, sensibility, and intelligence. You are countering the stereotypes and the self-ennobling, self-comforting propaganda. Also don’t leave leftists uncontradicted if they tell you that you’re an okay person just trying, for some mysterious reason, to strike a provocative pose or whatever such leftist rationalization of your being likable or whatever. I’m speaking not of aggressively raising the issues, just of being staunch when they are raised. If they want to argue political issues, then argue logically and factually such passion and fire as the situation allows. Let them learn full well that you can, but you merely don’t choose to at every possible occasion. (If your milieus are all leftward, you need to avoid its becoming a full-time job!) Don’t let them glibly or facilely escape that which for them is a paradox — your combination of political conservatism with personal qualities which they like but bigotedly associate with only the left. Be the seeming paradox.
For what it’s worth.
Dec 31, 2005 - 10:14 am 20. ex-democrat:bravo, roger, and bravo to all the commenters above. there are many different ways to be part of a ‘band of brothers.’
Dec 31, 2005 - 11:18 am 21. Peg C.:Well, add me to the list. I’m actually proud that I came to my senses and left the Left before 9/11, but whatever makes one do it is good. For me it was Clinton and his utter and complete betrayal of women; then my waking to the feminists’ utter and complete betrayal of women on his behalf. But enough about him and them.
I was a good lefty Dem for over 30 years in L.A. Moving to NY did not change me, but being in Manhattan on 9/11 (I live 80 miles north) killed any remaining vestiges of idiotarian in me. As LeoCon was chanting “Your whole life has been a lie,” all I could think was “This is the end of the Left as we know it.” I could see every one of the precious shibboleths of the Left disintegrating before my very eyes, in the monstrous cloud rising over lower Manhattan. As with the towers and innocents and heroes inside, we witnessed the destruction of all the pretensions and ill-gotten policies of the Left. I saw the Democratic party fall before the enemies of the U.S. and Western civilization, and I don’t mean to sound preposterous with these words. I saw it.
They saw it, too, and directed all their hatred towards Bush and America. Now we call them America-haters, and this makes them even more insane, and more anti-American.
Again I say, what do they do when Bush is gone? What will they have left (no pun intended)? As a neocon, I have a rediscovered love and reverence for this country and those who protect it. The Left just have their hatred, and by their hatred their default allegiance to those who would destroy us.
Dec 31, 2005 - 11:21 am 22. ForNow:Ah, heck, I’ve read the linked posts and threads, and they said everthing that I said, and better, and more. Great post, Roger.
Dec 31, 2005 - 11:29 am 23. Patrick Tyson:Again I say, what do they do when Bush is gone?
The better question is: What will you do when Bush is gone?
This “neocon” moment came to an end sometime after March and before December in 2003 and what you’ve gone through (though 9/11 qualifies as a “Road to Damascus” moment for a lot of you) is the same transition that people like Irving Kristol and Jean Kirkpatrick went through more gradually during the ’70s.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
A few thoughts on the threshhold of a new year courtesy of Lewis H. Lapham:
The figure of the enthusiast who has just discovered jogging or a new way to fix tofu can be said to stand or, more accurately, to tremble on the threshold of conversion, as the representative American.
Of what does politics consist except the making of imperfect decisions, many of them unjust and quite a few of them deadly?
People may expect too much of journalism. Not only do they expect it to be entertaining, they expect it to be true.
My best 2006 wishes to you representative Americans and all you international readers and commenters who, hopefully, find this as entertaining as I do.
Thank you, Roger. Be reading you.
Dec 31, 2005 - 1:04 pm 24. Peg C.:“The better question is: What will you do when Bush is gone?”
Patrick, what button of yours did I push and why? You are quoting an idiotarian of magnificent stature who has declared US democracy dead thanks to Bush.
link…
You need to do better than use quotes from such a fool. Lapham is stuck on stupid.
Dec 31, 2005 - 1:51 pm 25. chuck:Peg C.
That Lapham interview was interesting, not least because he was nostalgic for the country of his youth, a country where people had generosity of spirit and pulled together. Where, I asked myself, do these traits persist? Why, in the Red states and among the religious. And who has done the most to destroy these values? Why, enlightened folks like Lapham. The faults that Lapham notes are the unintended consequences of liberal progress; Lapham notes to outcome but fails to note the cause.
Dec 31, 2005 - 3:28 pm 26. Patrick Tyson:Peg C.—
Patrick, what button of yours did I push and why?
Not a one. Why do you ask?
Dec 31, 2005 - 4:47 pm 27. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):A conservative normally safe in Arizona, I travelled last spring to la-la land. While in LA I went to a friend’s housewarming party… one full of Hollywood power people. One of these folks, knowing I was a conservative, stopped by to chat. He politely asked me a number of questions about the WOT.
Then he confidently informed me that we invaded Afghanistan so George Bush’s “friends in the oil business” could build a pipeline. I said he was accusing the President of being a psychopath so callous as to condemn thousands to death just for profit. He agreed, and said it was true. There was never a hint of uncertainty in his monstrous accusations.
The cognitive disorder which produced this “logic” seems to be common among the ordinary left these days.
To see it in full bloom, visit the blog of Marc Cooper, a highly articulate member of Pyjamas Media. The commenters there are deeply infected with this disorder, rudely and viciously lashing out at anyone making a conservative statement.
Today’s left is only “caring” when narcissistically posing in their hall of mirrors.
Dec 31, 2005 - 6:45 pm 28. triticale:Like Bookworm and Neo-neocon, I blog nicknonymously so as to avoid coming out as a conservative. It is not my neighbors from whom I conceal this; they stopped talking politics with me eight years ago when they found out I’m a gun owner. It’s family. My older brother sincerely believes that the purpose of the GWOT is to enrich Cheney via Halliburton and it isn’t worth the estrangement that doing anything other than ignoring his emails would produce.
It isn’t simply that my parents had left the CPUSA to become mere fellow-travelers by the time I was old enough to notice and that it never occurred to them that I would need indoctrination; my younger brother hasn’t drunk much less of the Kool-aid.
Dec 31, 2005 - 7:22 pm 29. JBR:Many of us feel like outliers in deep blue areas of the country. Over a million people in LA county, and over 600,000 people in the five boroughs of NYC voted for Bush in 2004. We are not alone. My question is “where are all these people?”
Dec 31, 2005 - 7:37 pm 30. Sandy P:I have to say that always having been a conservative, I can look at myself in the mirror and not get into contortions to justify my beliefs.
The only thing I’m hypocritcal about is deducting RE taxes, I think they at minimum should be capped at 30% if not lower. But I do take my deduction, even tho I don’t receive full benefit.
–
I just don’t know how they can twist themselves into pretzels to justify their beliefs. I have a good friend with whom I cannot talk politics anymore.
Has BDS, rails about the deficit, high energy prices, evil BushCoHalliburtonoilCheneyillicitoilprofits, yada, yada yada.
YET–
Lives in a 3800 sf. or more home, owned major gas-guzzling boats most of her married life, got rid of the latest, husband bot a Porsche - they now have 3 - and might buy a Prius when it’s time to trade in her SUV.
We kind of got into the environment argument a couple of months ago, “Don’t you want clean air?” she asked me. I was so shocked, I didn’t list her sins and ask if that maybe she was part of the problem instead of the solution.
Oh, and they didn’t need the tax cuts, either, but her husband’s afraid of being audited, very agressive on his deductions.
We just can’t live like that. To Thine Own Self be True. It’s a lot easier on the soul and mental health.
Conservativism may be lonely, but my conscious is clear. There’s a lot less baggage on my life-long journey.
Happy and Prosperous New Year for Everyone!
Dec 31, 2005 - 7:50 pm 31. The Fop:As a teenager in the late 70’s, I felt cheated. Unlike my older brother and sister, I had missed out on the heyday of the 60’s/early 70’s counterculture. By the time I got to high school, love beads were replaced by gold chains, classic rock was replaced by corporate rock and disco. It seemed like people needed a break from all the social upheaval, so let’s just pop a few ‘ludes and listen to some Firefall or Ambrosia.
What I didn’t realize back then was that the death of the counterculture allowed the dedicated leftists, who didn’t give a damn about rock music or fashion or drugs, to become stealth-like in their mission. While everyone was boogying to Donna Summer and enjoying the economic prosperity of Reaganomics, the leftists were exerting more and more influence on our culture through academia, the media, the arts, etc. The post 60’s/early 70’s burnout provided the Cultural Marxists with a perfect opportunity to advance their “silent revolution”.
On one hand, the average person had lost interest in social movements. Yet by generally agreeing that these movements were positive and necessary, they became that much more vulnerable to going along with anything the left said or did, based on the logic that while the excitement and tumult of the 60’s was over, there was still much work that needed to be done to right all of the injustices to Blacks, women, gays, etc.
9/11 made us realize that we’ve been dated raped by the left ove the past 30 years. They slipped us a mickey and were having their way with us. In one fell swoop we woke up, threw them off of us and shouted “what the hell do you think you’re doing?”.
They’re waiting for us to go back to sleep.
Dec 31, 2005 - 10:50 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:Exactamente description, Fop. That’s about the size of it–a stolen march. True, and looking at it that way lets us off the hook–a leetle bit, anyway–for a near-decade of sleeping with Big Bubba and his gang.
Nice post to read first thing on the new year–thanks!
Happy New Year, Roger, and all you thoughtful folks who’ve offered so much clarity over the past year. May we all find in 2006 what we hope we’ll find in 2006.
Jan 1, 2006 - 5:38 am 33. Buddy Larsen:Sandy P’s friend asked “Aren’t You For Clean Air?” (but, fill in any issue)
That’s one way they did it. The answer is of course another question, “At what cost?”
But that second question was for the longest time unaskable. The power of fashion. Just check the 70s optics–no way we could look like that and not think like that!
Jan 1, 2006 - 5:59 am 34. cowalker:The idea that it takes courage to be a Bush supporter puzzles me. I live in Ohio. I’ve had bumper stickers critical of Bush on my car for more than three years now. I actively campaigned for Kerry. Yes, I was in a minority. I’m surrounded by Republicans. Big deal.
With other protestors I stood out on roads with signs against the Iraq war since before we invaded. Believe me, the majority of drivers who passed did not agree with us, although that situation has changed during the past nine months. Does that make me some kind of hero who righteously pities myself for being misunderstood?
No, my open opposition to Bush and his corrupt and incompetent government is my duty as a citizen. If you disagree, your open opposition is your duty as a citizen.
Strangely, the liberals in Ohio whom I know, all despise Osama Bin Laden and Saddam. We simply agree that Bush and his cronies are spectacularly failing to take the right steps to decrease terrorist activity. It appears that the Iraqi government is going to persecute the country’s Sunnis and Christians, subjugate its women, align itself with Iran, and continue as a threat to Israel. If Iraq ever succeeds in kicking out both its foreign and home-grown terrorists, they’ll be well-trained and ready to spread their violence around the globe. We don’t agree that it was worth the thousands dead and mutilated, and it’s our duty to keep saying so, just as it’s your duty to support Bush’s policy if you agree with it.
Jan 1, 2006 - 10:23 am 35. Buddy Larsen:I wish I could see what you see, cowalker. I just can’t.
Corruption, mostly this is media hype and hyperpartisn politics-motivated, though every large organization has its bad apples.
Incompetent, I see the results of effective policy nearly everywhere I look, and I also follow the policy initiatives that have been blocked by Democrats. If competence rightly includes the selling of good policy to the oppo party, then, yes, on some urgent issues, the pres has been incompetent.
But I wonder how anyone would’ve sold SocSec or tax reform to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Since the simple arithmetic screams for reform, I guess the message from your party is the old ‘rule-or-ruin’ extortionist’s message, ‘elect us, or we’ll take us ALL down’.
I also wonder if the war and the formation of a new Iraqi government might’ve gone far better, far faster, if the enemy hadn’t had the morale-boost of their enemy’s Democratic leadership virtually in its corner (with that victory-precedent set by ‘VietNam’) ever since summer of 2003 when the Democratic presidential-primary candidates apparently decided victory lay in opposing the president–no matter what the issue–a tactic which naturally then metastized into Bush Derangement Syndrome (a phenomenon that, without any doubt whatsoever, has been and is extremely valuable to the enemy).
Jan 1, 2006 - 11:42 am 36. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):cowalker
Perhaps you aren’t aware that so many people had their cars “keyed” for carrying pro-Bush signs that many were afraid to put them up, or instead put on the more neutral “support our troops” ribbon as a covert support for Bush.
I know of no place where support for Kerry was dangerous. I know of lots of places where openly supporting Bush put your property in danger, or your jobs (such as at Universities).
When a group of Vietnam War POWs sought to attack Kerry for what the;y viewed as personal harm brought on them bhy Kerry’s vicious “anti-war” behavior, they were sued by Kerry and others. They have now responded with their own defamation suit.
So now, effectively expressing your political opinions against the Democrat nominee, even if you are a Medal of Honor winning former POW, is enough to get you sued. This is an obvious tactic by the Soros-fueld left to intimidate people into not effectively combatting future Democrat presidents.
Jan 1, 2006 - 12:55 pm 37. chuck:cowalker,
I’ve had bumper stickers critical of Bush on my car for more than three years now. I actively campaigned for Kerry. Yes, I was in a minority. I’m surrounded by Republicans. Big deal.
Ah, you live among civilized and gentle people. Lucky you.
No, my open opposition to Bush and his corrupt and incompetent government is my duty as a citizen. If you disagree, your open opposition is your duty as a citizen.
Of course, there are some intolerant savages about. Living among a majority of such people could be unpleasant.
It appears that the Iraqi government is going to persecute the country’s Sunnis and Christians, subjugate its women, align itself with Iran, and continue as a threat to Israel.
You wish. I don’t see that you offer an alternative, in fact, it looks rather like you want to see these things transpire. The objects of your unfortunate affections exist only to suffer while you rejoice.
a tactic which naturally then metastized into Bush Derangement Syndrome
Those with susceptible personalities naturally succumbed to the cancer of hate. We all have our crosses to bear.
Jan 1, 2006 - 1:04 pm 38. Buddy Larsen:Vandalized Bush-stickered cars around Austin were common–and in the hundreds around the UT campus. Never heard of a single act against any Kerry-stickered property anywhere. Certainly speaks volumes to why cowalker feels so safe in his hostile environment–it ain’t hostile.
Jan 1, 2006 - 1:35 pm 39. Pat Curley:Roger, was curious if you saw that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty as charged, at least according to a letter by Upton Sinclair written back in the 1920s. An article revealing the recent discovery of the letter was buried by the LA Times in their Christmas Eve edition, but it’s getting a lot of attention in the last couple of days.
More and more it looks like the houses of the Left were constructed on noble lies. Note Sinclair’s rationalization that “…the next big case may be a frame-up, and my telling the truth about the Sacco-Vanzetti case will make things harder for the victims.”, and the acknowledgement that Lewis’s life might be endangered if he were to tell the truth.
Jan 1, 2006 - 2:29 pm 40. RT:Liberals in a bubble??
Hey, you guys are the ones with a President in a bubble who rarely gives his critics a chance to ask him questions.
You guys are the ones whose Congressional majority has used a whole pile of tricks to minimize the amount of actual debate in Congress, then writing a whole buncha new things into legislation in conference committee.
It’s the most popular conservative blogs, not the most popular liberal blogs, that mostly don’t have comments. (Good on you, Roger, for being one of the exceptions, but the point still holds. Too many Corners and Instapundits and Powerlines that don’t want to hear what their liberal critics might say.)
So, who’s living in a bubble, again?
–RT, who posts at the Straight Dope Message Board, where conservatives and liberals have been slugging it out with each other in debate since 1999. And we liberals have been absolutely pounding the conservatives for three years on Iraq.
Jan 1, 2006 - 2:37 pm 41. ex-democrat:Thanks for the contribution, RT. Irrelevant but a useful, if inadvertent, example of what we’re all not missing.
BTW, that tired old trope has been demolished in many places. Here, for example: http://yargb.blogspot.com/2005/12/whither-blogosphere.html
Jan 1, 2006 - 3:26 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:By all means, let’s have more debating with the people who keep giving us the can’t-even-get-it-to-the-floor personnel-appointment hearings (among many, many other exercises in congressional bad-faith). And I guess anyone can dig around and find somebody they can out-debate on any topic under the sun. I really must be missing RT’s point. Maybe my “whole pile of tricks” is all shrunkedy-up.
Jan 1, 2006 - 5:00 pm 43. Harley:Oh, Roger. Speaking as someone who actually works here, it’s worth noting, if only in the interests of accuracy, that no one in Hollywood knows who you are, no one remembers Moses Wine, and finally? No one cares.
Tho’ the fantasy is a sweet, however pompous and misguided. Dinner parties all over the West Side, riven by a single unanswerable question. “What in the world happened to Roger Simon?”
Who? Heh.
Jan 2, 2006 - 7:58 am 44. DaveSF:Cowalker:
Your first paragraph speaks volumes.
ìThe idea that it takes courage to be a Bush supporter puzzles me. I live in Ohio. I’ve had bumper stickers critical of Bush on my car for more than three years now. I actively campaigned for Kerry. Yes, I was in a minority. I’m surrounded by Republicans. Big deal.î
In fact, your contribution indirectly leads to two powerful points that I donít think you intend to make. The first is that, indeed, it is not a problem being a liberal amongst conservatives because the latter are by far more forgiving and open-minded toward those with whom they do not agree.
The second point is that your post is a clear example of what makes it so difficult to debate with liberals these days; that being that debate on the left is so complicated by illogic, non-sequitars and irrelevant comments that it is easier to simply dismiss the left out of hand rather than to engage them.
I believe that the premise of this thread is that if one is a conservative thinker surrounded by liberals, either by virtue of profession or by location, one can be (or, more to the point, will likely be) subjected to certain types of cruel behavior simply because of those beliefs if they are expressed openly. You appear to argue against that premise by noting that you are a liberal surrounded by conservatives and you have never been attacked. You then draw the conclusion that the premise of this thread, stated above, cannot be true. You see, this is not clear, linear logic as your experience says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, regarding the actions of liberals around conservatives, and so brings absolutely nothing of value toward the point of the discussion.
Moreover, you describe your situation with qualifying criteria that do not even support your premise, no matter how poorly formed it may be. Specifically, participants of this thread are describing their conservative experiences in hot beds of liberalism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, New York; the arts, education), which are well-documented to be on the political extreme. Your counter argument, such as it is, describes actions in what was, to use just one measure, a swing state in the last presidential election and so without further specificity, ìsurrounded by Republicansî is rather a severe description of your likely situation.
Jan 2, 2006 - 11:45 am 45. Buddy Larsen:“Who? Heh.”
Gosh, Harley, am I ever glad to not know you!
Who are YOU? No, wait–please–don’t tell me–sorry I asked!
Anyhoo–you managed to find the obscure Roger, having deemed him well-worthy of your hauteur.
Wonder if he could find you? Or if he could, if he would bother?
Jan 2, 2006 - 3:16 pm 46. klrfz1:You have to admit, Harley knows pompous! I wonder if Harley has ever been nominated for an Oscar?
Is that you posting as Harley, Ms. Streisand? Love your work!
Jan 2, 2006 - 3:53 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:Nah, Clearfizz, it’s just another BDSer who hates Roger for seeing the political skull of the modern left. James Tarantino @ WSJ is very familiar with Harley’s snotty e-maul habits.
Jan 2, 2006 - 4:34 pm 48. Buddy Larsen:Since he seems to frequent only the powerful among voices to the right of Professor Lillolman (far left), Roger has received a very nice compliment, actually. He should thank you, Harharharley!
\;-D
Jan 2, 2006 - 4:48 pm 49. Steven Mitchell:As far as the neo-neocon post, the advice I got when still a child seems to apply very well: Be who you must, as tactfully as you can. Your circle of friends will take care of itself.
I realize that sometimes you need to cut family members a bit more slack–especially the older ones. I’ll let a 70-something FDR to LBJ liberal ramble all they want. The younger ones should extend you the same courtesy that you extend them. If they cannot provide a reason for their views, they can keep them to themselves. It is *not* too much to ask.
Jan 3, 2006 - 8:53 am 50. Harley:Gosh, you guys’re a little tetchy. First, I don’t know who Harley Sorenson is, but it ain’t me. Sorry, Buddy. Second, however snarky, the point remains a valid one. And sure, I hate to disappoint the faithful, but Roger’s notion that folks all over town are wondering what the heck happened to the creater of Moses Wine is, well, sorry again, but pretty laughable. And given that your hauteur/pomp meters are set to sensitive, I’m surprised you let a comment as obviously self-aggrandizing as that pass muster. But maybe your muster is more forgiving that mine. Third, no, kirfz1, never nominated for an Oscar. But did pick up a Golden Globe. Fourth, and back to Buddy. James Taranto. Quentin Tarantino. James Taranto. Quentin Tarantino.
Jan 3, 2006 - 2:31 pm 51. Buddy Larsen:Ha–got me good, there, Harley. I do know the diff-I just goofed. Of course Quintin Taranto is the WSJ riter.
And Harley S. does sound a lot like you.
Here’s the explanation for your confusion re Roger: It’s likely that he hangs out with people who know him, and vice-versa.
The people he knows, know him.
The people you know, may not know him.
The people you know probably also know you, and would thus know whatever is happening in your politics, and would likely remark on any obvious change.
Same with the people Roger knows, the difference being that they would note same with regard to him, rather than you.
Sound plausible?
What was your Golden Globe awarded for?
Jan 3, 2006 - 8:35 pm 52. Harley:Oh, okay, fair enuf. The point I’d like to make is that whenever you hear someone talking about the tragedy of their Hollywood banishment (due to the bold quality of their thinking) they’re merely telling tales to make themselves seem more important than they really are. That doesn’t mean that some of Roger’s friends aren’t wondering what happened to him — after all, calling your friends ‘cowards’ tends to call the whole friendship thing into question, yes? — but idea that every time Roger heaves an ideological pebble into the waters of Hollywood a tsunami strikes Nate & Al’s? Just not credible.
I won the Globe for Twin Peaks.
Jan 4, 2006 - 9:45 am 53. Buddy Larsen:Thanks for the foothold. Okay–let’s say “Twin Peaks” was done from the approach you recommend for Roger (who, as “Roger”, is trying to brand a blog). Would I’ve even known enough about TP to be impressed (which I am, BTW)?
You must’ve decided against drama as an entertainment device sometime after TP, Harley.
Jan 4, 2006 - 10:31 am 54. Buddy Larsen:Impressive!
…say, I have this script I’ve been working on….
\;-)
Jan 4, 2006 - 10:42 am 55. jill bryant:Personally, I do prefer to hang out with people who have the same moral outlook I do. It just makes it easier since my response to almost everything is shaped by my ethics. That doesn’t mean I have stopped being friends with Bush supporters - it just makes it very difficult when we discuss anything topical. Luckily, only one of my friends has “come out of the closet” as you seem to think of it. She is an excellent demographic for it, played to well by Frank Luntz’s team - their monitoring of preferred word connotations regardless of actual meaning and the resulting actions is an example of excellent, if unethical, marketing. (Wait - you think unethical marketing is redundant? Being a marketer, I understand that - Luntz and his team certainly aren’t the only ones.) Also they have done well with the hints of moral superiority and creating a sense of belonging - something I have seen a lot of humans have a longing for. Let’s face it - all marketing plays to our vanities and secret needs.
I think the cleverest part of the reaching out from the GOP has been the all bases covered approach of non-responsibilitiy. Whatever happens - there is someone else to blame - and it all sits firmly under the neo-con guise of super responsibility.
So - when you are not invited to the parties, it isn’t because you are a blowhard who thinks you are a big deal (….something happened to the writer of Moses Wine? — whotheh@ll is Moses Wine….?) it’s because you’ve become a neo-con. Oke. Whatever it takes.
Jan 5, 2006 - 8:01 am 56. Bookworm:It’s fascinating reading all the thoughts that my original article generated. I’m getting a sense from this that the liberal speaker’s attitude often dictates whether or not people “come out.” I simply don’t know where to go when someone says that “Bush is evil,” or “Republicans are evil.” These are subjective statements that are immune to reasoned responses. I have much more success — and I’ll willingly expose my neocon biases — when people make factual statements (which they almost never do). And if the argument stays in the factual realm, I’ll often end the conversation with them nodding their heads in agreement (although they’ll usually wrap up by saying, “I still hate Bush”).
To get back to this subjective “I hate Bush” viewpoint, I also cling to my anonymity, not just because it’s an illogical argument, but because it’s such an angry argument. Some of the comments and emails I’ve gotten from those on the Left who have discovered me are, quite simply, frightening. It’s only words, yes, but angry words have a nasty habit of sliding into angry acts. My anonymity allows me to function freely in the realm of ideas, without putting myself (or my family) at risk. Keep in mind that I live in a community where Bush bumperstickers get your car keyed. Who needs that tsores when you can always make yourself known where it counts — at the ballot box.
My last point echoes one of the early comments to your post, from Frederick. The fact is, at least until this coming November, Republicans control the White House and Congress (we’ll ignore their passivity). The fact that my chosen party is in charge removes from me the onus of making a brave rearguard action in the face of horrible tyranny.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Simon for your thoughtful and interesting comments. I admire your bravery very much, and wish I were more like you. However, as my article has shown me, there are an awful lot out there who are just like me.
Jan 5, 2006 - 8:45 am 57. Buddy Larsen:Jill, your post is fascinating. You seem to be saying that whatever a person believes, says, or does, is less important than what someone else may ‘feel’ about him/her. IOW, you will judge–or, let’s use the cooler ‘evaluate’–someone not for what they are, but for what you want him/her to be.
Jan 5, 2006 - 10:02 am 58. Buddy Larsen:Jill, your post is fascinating. You seem to be saying that whatever a person believes, says, or does, is less important than what someone else may ‘feel’ about him/her. IOW, you will judge–or, let’s use the cooler ‘evaluate’–someone not for what they are, but for what you want him/her to be.
Jan 5, 2006 - 10:02 am