Conservatives think liberals are misguided; liberals think conservatives are evil
Bookworm on Oct 04 2008 at 9:02 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
During this political campaign, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Sashi McEntee, who is running as the San Francisco/North Bay Republican candidate for the California State Senate. You only need a few minutes in Sashi’s company to realize that she is intelligent, energetic, blessedly pragmatic, and extremely nice. Her politics are practical and, if voters would give her a chance, would reap enormous economic benefits for her constituents and for California too.
Because she is both a business woman and a social creature, Sashi has a large mailing list. As her campaign gears up, she’s been sending emails to people on her contact list to promote her campaign. One of those people is someone Sashi has always know is liberal, but it’s apparent from his response that he never realized before that she was conservative. I quote verbatim:
Sorry Sashi but the very fact that you are running as a republican disqualifies you as an intelligent and caring member of society. Surely you must realize this and if so how is it possible that you can associate yourself with that party.
The republican party has rampaged through this society and destroyed its very foundations with its insane deregulation notions and its spin mastering of our leadership into a personality cult. The very selection of McCain and his even more cynical selection of an extremist like Palin is the clearest evidence possible for any thinking person that the Republican party is simply evil in both intent and action.
If you have any moral conscience you would declare yourself an independent and declare your opposition to the Republican agenda and its membership.
Heaven help us if the likes of you and your party are elected.
Within one second, Sashi went from being someone this man felt friendly towards, to being the embodiment of evil. To him, as James Taranto so often likes to say (having picked it up from an AP story some months ago), “everything seemingly is spinning out of control.” His universe is a cruel and random place — and it’s all the Republicans’ fault.
To Progressives, politics is no longing about people espousing different approaches to achieve the same overall goals. Instead, it’s become an existential battle against the forces of evil incarnate. That is, in their own minds, they’re not just battling evil ideas (or foolish one), they’re battling evil people. And what’s really frightening is that, to Progressives, the evil people aren’t him, they’re her.
Email This Post To A Friend
66 Responses to “Conservatives think liberals are misguided; liberals think conservatives are evil”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
its spin mastering of our leadership into a personality cult
Oh my, liberals would never do that!
Conservatives think liberals are misguided
Hmm. I have to be honest here — for a long time I went with the idea that there is no evil person, in that everyone is acting in a way they believe to be good.
And I’d like to still believe that…but when you come to see a whole class of people who will endorse any action as long as it makes them personally feel good, it starts to get harder for me to see it that way.
Pull out of Vietnam and leave hundreds of thousands to be killed? That’s okay, because we’re not there anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. (Pre-surge, when I challenged a good friend who is a liberal about wanting to leave Iraq immediately and possibly once again leave a country to be devastated by civil war, he said, “At least we won’t be part of it.”)
Bully extremely poor Africans into using inefficient farming techniques that contribute to starvation, and get them to bypass perfectly good food because it’s “genetically modified”? Sure, people die — but those pushing for it feel better about themselves as a result, so it’s all okay.
Push for ever more restrictive recycling laws even in cases where it does much more damage than good to recycle? No problem, it feels good to recycle, so it must be good!
I feel my arteries hardening, and I start getting the desire to yell at kids to get off my lawn (and I don’t even have a lawn!) — I’m surrounded by these people (I live in the same region as Book), and I know they really feel they are doing the best thing, but this willingness to kill others with their kindness is really getting me to the end of my rope on the evil thing.
Ah, another way the Internet has made our lives better. Do you think he’d have said that to her face? I believe the degree of separation provided by our omnipresent keyboards have made it not only possible but probable that people will skip the part about trying to understand different approaches to the same goal and move straight from friendly acquaintance to acrimonious fiend.
Ronald beat me to the other point that’s well illustrated here, that the litany of sins is so often the same from both sides. I’m always a little stunned by that. WE spin mastered country leadership into a personality cult? In this instance, you could make a case about Sarah Palin, but at least people at McC/P rallies chant U-S-A and not the glorious leader’s name.
Good luck to Ms. McEntee.I hope her backers are as generous with their support as her detractors are with their “disillusionment.”
This is a timely post for me because just this morning a dear, dear friend, a Canadian whom I’ve known and been close to for more than a decade, sent me an email with the Heather Malick column and an article about CBC;s step back and asked, “can you believe what they’re doing to this poor woman?” She didn’t mean Palin. I have assiduously avoided political conversations up to now – I spent the last year slightly worried that she’d go off on Mark Steyn but thankfully she never brought it up. Would now be the time to send her the picture of me in my “I’m a Scary Conservative with a Hidden Agenda” t-shirt?
Hi, Book,
For me, that last line doesn’t make sense. Do you mean to say “And what’s really frightening is that the evil people are[n't] him, they’re her.” ?
Anyway–long-time lurker here, posting from the great soybean fields of the Midwest, just wanted to say how much I enjoy your site.
Let me add to what you just said, Book.
To Liberal /Progressives, “Liberals are good, Conservatives are evil, ordinary people are oppressed (by Conservatives) and our enemies are simply misunderstood”.
Ergo, the solution to world peace is that Conservatives must be destroyed.
And to add to all of the above, they aren’t even able to define for you what their standards of good and evil are, or what is the basis for their standards, since the majority of them have also condemned religion and don’t believe in God. Any God. So…who decides what’s good and evil…_this_ year??? next year???
I tried asserting I was an Independent the other night (as I’m certainly not wedded to the Republican party, though divorce from the Democrat one is final) and was accused by a friend and neighbor of being a “right wing Republican” voiced in tones that indicates this was some form of malign entity. This strikes me as a throwback to religious orthodoxy in earlier centuries. You can’t be a good person or acceptable member of society until you renounce earlier affiliation, repudiate the rethugs and conservatism, and embrace the progressive faith wholly. Put an Obama sign in your yard as a sign you are among The Elect. Believe in Global Warming and support prosecution of Bush and Cheney and company for war crimes. In return, your sh*t don’t smell and you can an autographed photo of Bruce Springsteen.
The letter is ‘liberal’ clearly defined – My way or the highway mentality.
It reminded me of a Thanksgiving dinner with family several years ago when the subject of politics arose. Having declared that I was a ‘R’ anything I had to say was immediately dismissed. Had there been room for one at a separate table, I am sure I would have been seated there.
I am muttering over the words ‘extremists’ describing McCain/Palin and the omission of Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc.
Liberal editing at its best. Liberal thinking at its worst.
By your standards, which I have read much about, I can guarantee most of you would call me a liberal….and yet, I do not believe conservatives are evil as you suggest liberal’s do. Neither do most of my friends, who you would undoubtedly call liberal. So, I really think you’re just way off-base here.
I think you (self-proclaimed supposed conservatives) are deeply misguided, not evil.
Some in both parties truly believe the opponents are evil, and some in both parties probably are evil people…..but there’s really no basis for you to say that it is the conservatives who are taking the “high road” in this case. Over the years, I’ve personally experienced many many conservatives accusing the liberals of being evil, not just misguided.
You have really just manufactured this little argument out of thin air.
Wow. That makes me feel for Ms. McEntee. And she seems like such an amazing person!
I’ve had somewhat similar experiences and they always leave me feeling baffled and, frankly, alone. Finally reveal to someone that you are a conservative and you are met with bugged out eyes, gaping mouths, sputtering, as if you just told someone you like to eat small children for breakfast.
This from the same people who claim to support diversity.
Deana
Just a note to Kali. You need to follow the links embedded in “him” and “her”, then you will understand.
My liberal daughter, who is a labor/delivery nurse and has a heart as big as all outdoors, has consistently demonized G.W. Bush. She can’t really tell me why. She recently wrote that Sarah Palin makes her gag. I doubt that she has ever heard Sarah Palin speak. I can tell that she is getting liberal talking points from some source and this attitude is the result. We cannot talk politics for more than a minute or two; it has become a toxic subject because of the seemingly visceral hate.
Jack -
No one manufactured anything here. You are acting as if Bookworm created the letter Ms. McEntee received out of whole cloth.
A person who was familiar with Ms. McEntee and had been friendly towards her changes his ENTIRE opinion of her as a HUMAN BEING because she . . . murdered someone? takes advantage of the elderly? abuses babies? No. He all of a sudden thinks she is a horrible human being because she believes in crazy stuff like fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, promoting policies that encourage and support small businesses, low taxes, and so forth.
Deana
If a person relies on the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, the three broadcast networks, CNN or MSNBC for their news, why should anyone be surprised that Republicans are portrayed as evil.
When was the last story anyone saw that showed a Republican positively. When talking about corruption by a Democrat, the story will always remind the reader the Republicans are just as bad. When talking about the failing of a Democrat, does the story remind the reader that Democrats are as corrupt?
There is a difference in tone by reporters when Democrats are in charge versus Republicans that permeates the media. Should we be surprised? The Democrat message resonates with people who are not personally compassionate but wish their government to be compassionate for them. This has been documented, and we have discussed this before.
The Democrat message- we can give you a better life by taking from some who have too much. At the core it is elitist, yet sympathetic.
The Republican message- if you work hard, sacrifice the immediate for the long term you can be successful. But who wants to do that? We want it NOW!
Now the rebuttal by a liberal, I suspect, will be that there are no positive stories about Republicans because they ARE evil, or some such nonsense.
Sigh.
A friend just died a few days ago. He and I weren’t speaking, because every time we did speak, he would launch on a tirade about Evil Stupid Bush, and Evil McCain. He would do that on a shared mailing list, most of the other people on the list being more or less politically in his camp. I was eventually ejected from the mailing list because I would argue against this guy’s tirades.
Now some of those friends have written and told me it was a shame it was that I didn’t apologize for arguing with him before he died.
@ JackMayo
I think you (self-proclaimed supposed conservatives) are deeply misguided, not evil.
Good to hear. Not that you consider me misguided, but at least that you do not consider me evil. Perhaps because I used to be a liberal, I similarly consider liberals to be well-intentioned but misguided.
Over the years, I’ve personally experienced many many conservatives accusing the liberals of being evil, not just misguided. . You have really just manufactured this little argument out of thin air.
Perhaps the labeling of evil depends on where one is located. In strongly liberal areas, such as the Bay Area, perhaps there is a stronger tendency to demonize conservatives. The example that Book cited- not manufactured out of thin air- came from the Bay Area. Similarly, perhaps in strongly conservative areas there is a greater tendency to demonize liberals. I live in an area that is fairly well split between the two. In a walk around my neighborhood last night, I detected perhaps a 60/40 split between McCain/Obama signs, while the city will vote for Obama. Outlying areas will go for McCain. Perhaps because of this lack of an overwhelming majority, civility reigns. I do not often advertise my political beliefs, in part because I have a volunteer position in the community which makes neutrality a prudent position, but when I have, the disagreements have been civil, and both sides can find points in common.
Yes, there are examples of conservatives labeling opponents as evil. Example : Bill Ayers, the unrepentant if somewhat unsuccessful terrorist , who IIRC related that he cheered when he saw footage of North Vietnamese tanks entering Saigon.
I found the likes of Ayers to be self-righteous, arrogant, intolerant and sectarian back in the day when I was a leftist, so I have no problem with labeling the unrepentant terrorist Ayers as evil. Being self-righteous, arrogant, intolerant and sectarian does not make one evil, but when one combines that with bombing and support of Communists, it does, IMHO.
I have never been a churchgoer, but have had lifelong experience with Christian fundamentalists due to family connections. It is my opinion that there is a very strong tendency on the left to demonize Christian fundamentalists- “just as bad as the jihadis” is a refrain one often hears, in one form or another, from the left. Those who are of that opinion should spend some time in Saudi Arabia. I know people who have spent time in Saudi Arabia, and believe you me, they do not hold that opinion. My experience is that those on the left demonize Christian fundamentalists more than Christian fundamentalists demonize those who are not members of their church. I have had very cordial relationships with Christian fundamentalists while making it clear that I was not about to join their church, if the issue ever came up.
but there’s really no basis for you to say that it is the conservatives who are taking the “high road” in this case.
Can you come up with a similar example of what happened on WGN-AM in Chicago to Kurtz and to Freddoso, where at the behest of the Obama campaign they were essentially shouted down? What about the smears that Sarah Palin has been subjected to. High road?
Oh, Charlie. I’m so sorry to hear about your friend and what happened.
This really gets to the core of the problem. Why is it that he was allowed to express his opinions freely but when you expressed yours, you became the bad guy?
This is just so difficult.
I know most people try to keep politics from destroying their personal relationships but when someone constantly tells you that you are evil for believing in X, it is hard to feel the same warmth toward that person.
I’m really sorry that your friend died and that this happened between the two of you.
Deana
From the LA Times
Here’s the LA Times “positive” reporting on increased aid to Africa.
No wonder people think Bush is evil. With reporting like this, I’m not sure even I like him!
>>…because she . . . murdered someone?>>
Naah…that would be ok…as long as it happened a long time ago. No big deal.
>>”Total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa is about $3 billion, equivalent to about two days of Pentagon spending. About $1 billion pays for emergency food aid, of which half is for transport. About $1.5 billion is for “technical cooperation,” essentially salaries of U.S. consultants. Only about $500 million a year — less than $1 per African — finances clinics, schools, food production, roads, power, Internet connectivity, safe drinking water, sanitation, family planning and lifesaving health interventions to fight malaria, AIDS and other diseases…”>>
How much is being provided by Great Britain and the UN?? How do the donations they provide broken down??
Charley, you wrote:
> Now some of those friends have written and told me it was a shame it was that I didn’t apologize for arguing with him before he died.
Charley, as soon as you can, you need to get your mind around the fact that those people are FORMER friends. Never refer to them as friends. They are out for your blood. They hide it behind sweet smiles, I’m sure, but what you describe is vicious.
Get them out of your head, out of your heart, out of your life. They want to harm you.
Pathologies of the Left…
Bookworm examines.
…
Too many years ago, when I was a Democratic Party operative, we were rivals but not enemies. Like the Packers and the Bears. Or the Yankees and the Red Sox. Or the City Slickers and the Country Bumpkins. Or Carvel and Matelin.
But below our competition, we had a great reservoir of commonality: our language, our faith, our economonic status — “middle class” — our holidays, our essential identity. And that unity — dare I say e pluribus unim? — was much, much stronger than the rivalries — the team we rooted for.
We were above all else, Americans first. We loved our country, “greatest on Earth.”
What happened? How did we get to this ugly place? Was it “diversity?” Or “situational ethics?” Was it when we lost the schools? Was it the “if it feels good, do it” motto of the Boomers? I don’t know.
I don’t know either, Ellie.
Growing up in the mid-west, I knew many families were Democrats but they believed exactly the same things my extended family did. There was no, or almost no, difference between us. No one ever thought much about it, honestly.
Now, the difference in beliefs is stark. Yes, there still are many people back home who are exactly like me and yet vote Democrat but they are, by and large, elderly and are not very tuned into what the more urban Democrats and liberals support.
Several years ago, my mom was having a conversation with elderly neighbors. These were people who had gone to our same church, did what my parents did, everything. It was right before the 2000 election and they mentioned that they were voting Democrat. They were surprised to find out that my mom wasn’t. When asked why, my mom, who is very much against abortion, said she could never vote for someone who supports abortion on demand.
Ellie, these two old folks were SHOCKED to find out that the overwhelming majority of Democrats support abortion and want to ensure that a woman can get it, with little regard to the circumstances. They had no idea. These were not stupid people at all – it’s just that in their world, the Democrats they had always known and lived around would never have believed or support what has now become bedrock principle to the Democrats and liberals of today. Never.
Those days are over.
Deana
suek said:
And to add to all of the above, they aren’t even able to define for you what their standards of good and evil are, or what is the basis for their standards, since the majority of them have also condemned religion and don’t believe in God.
As an atheist, I don’t really understand this. What makes me incapable of recognizing and wanting to defeat evil? Humans have a pretty common understanding of evil in the basic areas, regardless of their religion of lack of religion.
Any God. So…who decides what’s good and evil…_this_ year??? next year???
I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I won’t get into recent research that has been revealing the ways that humans determine what is evil, and the fact that definitions of evil are pretty set regardless of other factors, but I will touch on a related subject of interest:
Among atheists, there are never ending debates about whether there is a purpose to trying to talk people out of religion. An argument for it is the belief that religion leads to many of the wars, to 9/11 terrorist attacks, etc. One of the arguments for not talking them out of religion is the belief that the typical person without religion attempts to fill the spiritual void by adopting more actively destructive beliefs than religion, such as woo-woo medical stuff (curing cancer through energy fields and such), extreme environmentalism, and other such dangerous beliefs impacting our lives every day.
I am undecided on this, but I do think a mistake people make in the first belief (people should be talked out of religion because religion is dangerous) is to treat all religions the same. Islam is not Christianity or Judaism; Islam is an unreformed religion that has not adapted to modern times. So I think it’s probably better to say that unreformed religions must be wrestled into modernity (there is no option there — it is a war of cultures and religion that we must win), and otherwise we atheists shouldn’t presume there is a benefit into talking people out of modern religions.
For myself, I expend a reasonable amount of energy railing on about dangerous woo-woo beliefs, and zero energy trying to debate people about modern religion.
>>What happened? How did we get to this ugly place? Was it “diversity?” Or “situational ethics?” Was it when we lost the schools? Was it the “if it feels good, do it” motto of the Boomers? I don’t know.>>
It’s the Alinsky model being followed, with the goal of destroying democracy and the US. It’s the “multi national ” ideal. United we stand, divided we fall – so those who want to destroy us have been dividing us. And those on the left – the far left – are those who wish to destroy us. There are democrats who are not on the far left – they’re _getting_ left.
>>Humans have a pretty common understanding of evil in the basic areas>>
Please enlighten us. I’d really like to hear what that common understanding of evil encompasses…
As a believing Christian, Ronald Hayden, I must commend you on the strength of your faith even if we don’t agree. Given how Judeo-Christianity absolutely saturates our history, our culture and our society, I must concede that it is much easier to believe in God or, at least, to be agnostic about God’s existence. To overcome all that evidence of faith all around us and believe in “nothing” and that Man’s existence is simply a lucky crap shoot demands a faith grounded in a very strong set of convictions.
I do take issue with the carnard (which I recognize you cite but do not make) that “religion” leads to wars. Religion or no religion, war has always been part of humanity’s existence and I would argue that Christianity has fundamentally tried to change that aspect of our existence for the better (consider Christian influences in the war against slavery or the concept of the “just” war and the Geneva Conventions). Also, the atheist faith has its own wars to answer for, the wars of Communism, Naziism, the French Revolution, etc. Plus, there are all the wars fought where God played no role, one way or another, but which were fought purely for tribal gain…I think of the Mongols, Romans, Hittites, etc., etc.
Other than that, great post!
You never heard of pagan virtue, Danny? The pre-Christian world was not entirely debauchery, decadence, sexual license and child sacrifices to Baal. Yeah, Judeo-Christianity saturates our culture, history and society, granted, but you must acknowledge too the Greco-Roman heritage. The roots of words like democracy and republic are Greek and Latin, not Aramaic. We would not have the ideas about liberty and government we have, would not have the language we have or the thoughts we can express in that language, we would not be who we are, without that heritage. I realize this is off-topic. On topic, let me say some wars are driven by religion, some by material circumstances, some by politics, but most by the sheer human propensity for violence (even troops of chimps in the wild will form posses, patrol their territory and beat the crap out of intruders) fueled by pride, rancor and national pique. Thucididyes said this; it’s nothing new. What drove German militarism but the humiliation of WWI and the desire to restore lost honor? What possessed the Argentines to grab the Falklands? Surely not the gain of penguins and sheep. I certainly believe there is a metaphysical Evil, but there is also the plain physical reality of mammalian DNA.
and I know they really feel they are doing the best thing, but this willingness to kill others with their kindness is really getting me to the end of my rope on the evil thing.
Now you know what Petraeus and the Iraqis felt like when they had to fight civilians and their own countrymen because they believed that America needed to be kicked out of Iraq cause it was the Good Thing To Do ™.
Course in Iraq, kindness was never a major part of things. Tribal loyalty, “face”, and Shariah were, however. That mean the same thing in the end, of course.
Ah, another way the Internet has made our lives better. Do you think he’d have said that to her face? I believe the degree of separation provided by our omnipresent keyboards have made it not only possible but probable that people will skip the part about trying to understand different approaches to the same goal and move straight from friendly acquaintance to acrimonious fiend.
people say a lot of things now that people aren’t followers of the Code Duello anymore.
It’s called progress. Progress towards what, though?
I spent the last year slightly worried that she’d go off on Mark Steyn but thankfully she never brought it up.
Unfortunately, she may know more about Mark Steyn than what she thinks she knows about American politics.
And to add to all of the above, they aren’t even able to define for you what their standards of good and evil are, or what is the basis for their standards, since the majority of them have also condemned religion and don’t believe in God. Any God. So…who decides what’s good and evil…_this_ year??? next year???
Evil people are whomever gets in my way, for my way is the only way that will produce good. Makes sense, right, suek. If you believe there is no such thing as free will, then those that try to foster belief in free will are just exploiting people with lies, right?
By your standards, which I have read much about, I can guarantee most of you would call me a liberal….and yet, I do not believe conservatives are evil as you suggest liberal’s do.
Most folks here don’t go into the specific terminology and philosophical debate that someone like me will go into and have gone into.
There are fake liberals, classical liberals, socialists, communists, Leftists, Democrats, and nihilists. Like all group associations, they share some commonalities but often differ at various points along the line. Complexity is produced by the fact that even amongst the group association you have, there are also leaders, trusted followers, and tools. The ratio and exact composition of leaders to trusted followers to tools differ for each group association and for each association that crosses another group.
Neither do most of my friends, who you would undoubtedly call liberal. So, I really think you’re just way off-base here.
That’s a parochial issue that says “this thing doesn’t exist because nobody in my village has ever seen it before”. That has nothing to do with the truth. If you rely upon your friends to tell you how to think and what things are true in the world, I’m sorry to tell you that you are going to be in for a sad awakening. Or no awakening, which would be scarier.
Some in both parties truly believe the opponents are evil
But by your own attestation, you have no personal experience with such people. You invalidate your own opinions because who do you think you are talking to here, except with people who do know, personally, “some” of those people in both parties you are talking about?
You have really just manufactured this little argument out of thin air.
You, who have no personal experience with the people we are talking about while we do, accuse us of manufacturing things out of thin air? Who do you think you are, the Elect? Parochial villagers don’t become the elect, because the elect are Leaders or trusted followers, not tools to be used and discarded. Leaders know what is up. Trusted followers know most of what is going on in their group association and movement, whether fake liberal or classical liberal.
Given the life experiences of most Republicans or classical liberals, they have been previously part of the communist, socialist, Leftist, Democrat, or etc. groups and associations. They know those people in reality, not in fantasy or abstractions.
To you, who haven’t been exposed to many different ideologies and group loyalties, of course it would seem like we just manufactured this “little argument” out of thin air. Why would it appear any different to those that have an emotional attachment to what they think is true and what they have been told, by their little community, is true?
What makes me incapable of recognizing and wanting to defeat evil? Humans have a pretty common understanding of evil in the basic areas, regardless of their religion of lack of religion.
Atheists don’t believe in God, so they must either replace God with some kind of manufactured higher power or live life in the absence of a higher power. However, if you live life without a higher power, then philosophy demands that your ethics conform to your metaphysics. Without a higher power, the ethics of right and wrong change dramatically. Without the fear of punishment or the reality of punishment, there are no limitations on your actions aside from arbitrary ones.
Most atheists get by with the higher power being the US Constititon and the police. But the problem starts occuring when you have to hold government to account. Who is higher than the government? The people. But who is higher than both the people and the government? Nothing. People can do what they want, and if people can do what they want, so can government so long as they can convince the people. And people can be convinced of many things.
n argument for it is the belief that religion leads to many of the wars, to 9/11 terrorist attacks, etc.
Belief leads to many wars. And it doesn’t matter whether that belief is in a god or religion. There is no human being in existence that can believe in nothing. Nature abhors a vacuum.
That is, in their own minds, they’re not just battling evil ideas (or foolish one), they’re battling evil people.
Republicans and classical liberals are the same way, Book. Except we see evil people based upon the ethical system that says stripping people of free will is wrong: giving people that deserve death a chance to hurt more of the innocent is wrong.
Al Qaeda Z-Man said democracy is evil because democracy means that people can choose to reject Allah and since Allah is the ultimate good, then the rejection of the ultimate good can only ever be evil, correct.
It all depends on what your ethics are, Book. What is evil or good, what is a foolish idea or an evil idea, matters little depending on the difference in ethics at work.
To the Democrats, sacrificing the poor so that the rich politicians can remain in power is a Good Thing ™, Book. But we don’t think it is a good thing, now do we.
suek said:
Please enlighten us. I’d really like to hear what that common understanding of evil encompasses…
I will do a write-up on this; it’ll involve a bunch of links and such, so I’ll post it on my blog and link here (last time I commented with more than one link, it got treated as spam and disappeared — annoying!) Hopefully this evening; if not, later this week.
Danny Lemieux said:
To overcome all that evidence of faith all around us and believe in “nothing” and that Man’s existence is simply a lucky crap shoot demands a faith grounded in a very strong set of convictions.
I don’t know what “evidence of faith” means, and I don’t think I believe in “nothing” or that our existence is “simply a lucky crap shoot”, but other than that, thanks!
Getting into detail on all that would require a lot of writing, which I’d be happy to do at some point, but in the interests of pithiness, I’ll summarize some of it this way:
I think it’s fair to describe my atheism as an unverifiable “hypothesis”; I started to write “theory”, but a proper theory, in contrast to the common perception, needs to be testable, so hypothesis is more accurate. Looking at all the evidence available to me, I conclude that the world and the universe is exactly the same as it would be without a higher power, and that none of the big questions that remain are answered by the existence of a higher power, so my hypothesis is that there is no higher power.
I’m fully aware I can’t prove that, and that by the definition many people use, a higher power will never be disprovable. So in the strictest sense I am what all of us who believe a higher power is neither provable nor disprovable can really only be in intellectual terms, an agnostic.
But like most of us, while I may realize the question of a higher power is not provable, I do have an opinion about the existence of said power and I have yet to see anything that makes me reconsider my opinion. (I grew up quite immersed in religion, and believing it, so it’s not a question of my inability to be religious or my lack of exposure.)
Fortunately there is one form of atheism we all seem to be able to agree on these days: There is no Zeus, Isis, or Athena!
Let us celebrate our unity…:)
Ymarsakar said:
Without a higher power, the ethics of right and wrong change dramatically.
Anecdotally, that’s not my experience, and it doesn’t match the research I’ve seen that I’ve promised to post about, so let me ask: What proof do you have for this? Proof of atheists acting dramatically differently, in a consistently observable manner, than non-atheists when it comes to questions of ethics? Proof and not philosophical argument…
Without the fear of punishment or the reality of punishment, there are no limitations on your actions aside from arbitrary ones.
If you believe this, I certainly hope you are religious! It doesn’t match my ethical outlook, for sure, and I’d be concerned about anyone who believed this living next door.
What proof do you have for this? Proof of atheists acting dramatically differently
Again, it’s not about acting dramatically different because why would they? The United States Marines, the police system, and the American way of life doesn’t change one iota whether you are an atheist or not. That is the point of the system, after all.
For people to change their behavior, the risk and rewards would have to change in a meaningful way. Outside stimuli would have to change so that people’s reactions, and thus behavior, would change. None of these things happen simply because a person believes in God or not.
I speak of ethics and ethics is part of philosophy. Whether someone acts as if fire is hot or not should not affect whether it is or it is not. Either it is or it is not. The same is true of ethics. What that means is that if you change the basic metaphysics, the existence of God or a higher power, then you also change right and wrong. Just as changing the reality of physical laws, like gravity or thermodynamics, would be able to change what you could or could not do in this universe.
These changes are real, assuming the metaphysics are truly different. But we are assuming they are, after all. If we don’t, then it is just an argument between he said she said.
Proof of atheists acting dramatically differently, in a consistently observable manner, than non-atheists when it comes to questions of ethics?
An atheist is beholden to the same morality, which is part of their culture, as a religious individual. Morality does not change. Ethics is not dependent upon any one culture or society’s morality, however. Ethics depend upon Epistemology and Metaphysics while morality depends on whether you grew up in America or a Saudi Arabian honor killing family. You see the difference, I hope. Religion, belief in God, that has nothing to do with it. The culture dictates people’s actions, so you would not see “proof” of atheists acting dramatically differently, because that is not what changes.
If you believe this, I certainly hope you are religious! It doesn’t match my ethical outlook, for sure, and I’d be concerned about anyone who believed this living next door.
Your ethical outlook says that human beings would act correctly and justly if there were no laws, police, threats, or negative consequences to their actions?
Your “ethical outlook” is not very ethical, since it does not reflect the real state of humanity.
Also, I would like to state for the record that efforts at fear mongering and labeling basic differences in philosophy as being dangerous “religious” things to be rather opposite of the search for truth.
If you have a difference in philosophy, that is one thing, but to describe that difference as simply someone with a religious complex that you would be concerned about if he was living next door is a straw man, not a difference in philosophy.
RH: don’t dis Isis. I used to date her.
Jack,
Thanks for a civil post. I’d like to posit a thought-experiment as a test case for your assertion that most of your liberal friends don’t believe conservatives are evil…
How would your friends react if they were asked to attend a civic function/dinner in your city if the keynote speaker was to be Vice President Cheney?
What would the comments be like?
I live in the Seattle area, and I can tell you that self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ (“I’m not liberal!”) around here appear to hate the Vice President with a passion that I can hardly believe and certainly don’t understand. They dismiss his long years of government service as merely a means to line his own pockets and enact his nefarious schemes. They publicly express amazed regret that his heart condition hasn’t killed him off. They’ve never met him. They don’t want to. They consider him… evil.
In one way, I’m a little like Book (except I truly wish I had her facility for writing entertaining, informative prose). I’ve been deflecting political questions for many years because I don’t want people to discover that I’m a conservative. Hearing what many of them say about conservatives truly frightens me. No one wants to be shunned. In Seattle, like the Bay Area, being a public conservative practically guarantees that you WILL be shunned. Here, conservatism = socio-political leprosy.
Ymarsakar said:
If you have a difference in philosophy, that is one thing, but to describe that difference as simply someone with a religious complex that you would be concerned about if he was living next door is a straw man, not a difference in philosophy.
I left a word out, or at least was a bit ambiguous: I would not want an atheist living next door who believes that anything goes if there is no higher power.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Fortunately, I don’t know any such atheists personally.
Based upon what you have posited, Ronald Hayden, I would put you in the agnostic rather than atheist category. No worries, Mate.
Danny Lemieux said:
Based upon what you have posited, Ronald Hayden, I would put you in the agnostic rather than atheist category.
In weasily Bay Area terms, I “self-identify” as an atheist, so I’ll go with that.
Now, where’s my government handout???
In response to Book’s original post,
I enjoy sending information and links to my family supporting my positions on politics.
A few weeks back one family member sent me a short reply:
Bro,
Stop sending us your GARBAGE. Thanks but NO Thanks.
It was a shocker. I’d never attack anyone for sending me info or links or arguments supporting a position I didn’t agree with. I certainly never expected it from a member of my family! No matter how hot the passions were running.
I and that particular relative still haven’t talked, though I doubt there will be lasting damage. As to the rest of my family, they don’t agree with that email at all, though they’ve moved solidly Democrat lately. We’re staying away from politics; I told them if they have any questions or are wondering if they’re hearing the entire truth, they know how to reach me.
Mike — that’s why I started a blog. People can now come to me instead of my forcing myself onto them.
To answer Ronald’s question,
an extreme example of what I think you’re asking for is Peter Singer. You can look him up all you want; the argument is pretty clear cut that in his case, at least, his [fairly militant] atheism (and the logical consequences and outflow thereof) causes him to ‘act’ (insofar as saying he would act in such and such a way) dramatically differently, in a consistently observable manner, than non-atheists.
One can of course argue that given the opportunity to actually do the [very far out] things he proposes, Prof Singer will recoil in disgust. But it is entirely possible he will not…
And as far as it goes, BW, I happen to think yonder average liberals are lazy.
gkong3 said:
an extreme example of what I think you’re asking for is Peter Singer.
What I’m asking for is statistical and systematic proof, not an example of an individual atheist. Of course there are individual bad people of every stripe.
Presumably, if atheists have no moral bearing and think “anything goes”, then the prisons might have a disproportionate number of atheists? There would be more atheists engaging in child abuse or sexual abuse or something?
I’ve never heard of such a statistic, but perhaps it’s out there somewhere…
In this discussion I would like to keep in mind my original point, which tangentially touches on this idea that atheists have no moral bearing: That is, that in the desire to fill a spiritual void left by lack of religion, people without religion are more likely to turn to things that make them feel good but that result in harm to other people through unintended and unexamined consequences.
These are not direct crimes such as robbery and rape, but indirect crimes in which the person believes they are improving the world and ends up making it worse.
If this is true (I don’t know, but I’m sympathetic to the idea), then I contend that this trend is much more damning and damaging than the idea that atheists run around committing any act they can get away with, which appears to be false on the face of it.
“I’ve never heard of such a statistic, but perhaps it’s out there somewhere…”
- kinda like Jack Black’s side kick in “Lucha Libre”…”I don’t believe in God, I believe in Science”.
But the question is, what does the athiest rely on to shape his moral bearing?
I left a word out, or at least was a bit ambiguous: I would not want an atheist living next door who believes that anything goes if there is no higher power.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
But, again, since people have to recognize the fact that there are higher powers than them, such as the US government or the IRS at least, you won’t really know how they will act until such people get to the top.
It is only when people have power, real power, that you get to see how much they can be corrupted or not.
The same is true regarding Islamic Fundamentalism or any similar version of belief in religious salvation.
Without the oil, they would be a blip on the radar smaller than Rwanda and Darfur combined. But with power, you truly see how their actions change when they believe that there is no punishment from on high. To Atheists, there is no power on high, only the government and military power. If they start treating government as god, and it will happen, in the same fashion that Islamic Jihadists treat Allah as an instant get out of misery free card, of course the behavior will change.
To anyone that believes God is on his side, it is the same as if believing you won’t be punished by God for fighting on his side. And if there is no god, then there is nothing to punish or reward you. This is the only life you have. Yet human beings cannot live lives without any reward or fear of punishment. It would only be existence, not living. We need to do things that are rewarded and we need to experience the consequences of our actions, both negative and positive. A vacuum develops and an antheist has to believe in something, some purpose in life.
A good example would be Ayn Rand, an antheist, and some of her followers. Without the presence of god, they channeled their belief into Ayn Rand and her philosophy on an almost cult like level. Without a God to believe in, we find the most powerful and charismatic human figure and put all our faith into them. Whether they be Ayn Rand, the Democrat identity politics, Obama messiah, or just faith that the government, if only you believe in it enough, will solve all of your existential problems.
In conclusion, the problem was never with religion to begin with, you see.
In this discussion I would like to keep in mind my original point, which tangentially touches on this idea that atheists have no moral bearing
My point was that without a higher power such as God to dictate right and wrong or to convince people to do right from wrong, what you have is a necessary need to replace God with X.
If this is true (I don’t know, but I’m sympathetic to the idea), then I contend that this trend is much more damning and damaging than the idea that atheists run around committing any act they can get away with, which appears to be false on the face of it.
Again, cultural and realistic constructs such as the police and the military prevent such things even if it was true, which means it is totally irrelevant whether atheists, stripped of all external factors, would do such and such things. The same would also be true of religious individuals and extremists and anybody else, for that matter.
The housing crisis and fanny mae is just another example of what happens when people think they won’t be punished for doing X, so they keep on doing X cause the rewards are higher than the risks.
But the question is, what does the athiest rely on to shape his moral bearing?
False idols. Philosophies like Objectivism, egoism, egotism, narcissism (John Kerry), malignant narcissism (John Kerry), and various other things like science and global warming.
Human beings are required to believe in something, for without belief our lives are nothing but an existence devoid of joy or purpose.
Love is a belief. Hate is a belief. Anger is a belief. Or at least, they are all sourced from a belief.
Would an athiest have a problem with an ethicist asking the elderly to voluntarily commit suicide to relieve pressure on the health care system?
Most of the medical community’s “ethical experts” are retarded in terms of philosophy or even correct logic.
Would an athiest have a problem with an ethicist asking the elderly to voluntarily commit suicide to relieve pressure on the health care system?
Depending on how much they believe life is about free will and suffering, they would rather support the argument that the elderly should have a choice to suffer or to decide the time and manner of their own death.
Of course, in reality, what tends to happen is what you have said. Greed never did much pay attention to free will or any other civil liberties.
Maybe liberals think conservatives are “evil” because they won’t just discuss the issues, but rather want to go with character assassination. Isn’t that what McCain plans to do?
Helen,
Now it depends on what you define as character assasination. Given Barack’s meager record of accomplishments, how do we know that people like Davis, Ayers, Rezko, Wright, etc. won’t have an undo influence on him?
And given nothing empirical to base a conclusion on how Barack would govern, other than his words, isn’t a discussion of these associations valid?
Character assination.
Just exactly how do you define that? What constitutes “Character”?
Do you think character is a relevant issue in the presidency?
What issues do you think need to be discussed?
Character assassination also implies attributing falsehoods to a person’s character. Here, though, McCain is questioning Obama’s judgment based on his known associates. It goes as much to competence as it does to character, and it’s based on truth. That’s fair game in an election.
As for the attack on McCain and the Keating Five, that’s pretty old news, isn’t it? McCain has done his mea culpas and learned his lesson. Obama has never apologized and doesn’t seem to have learned anything. To the contrary, his constant denials, coupled with his still shady associates, indicate that he knows he has something to hide, but believes he has nothing to learn.
Suek,
Actually, most of the issues have been discussed. That’s what McCain is afraid of. He’s afraid the American people want something different, and it’s not him. He’s afraid the condition of the economy will lead people to vote for Obama.
>>Actually, most of the issues have been discussed.>>
If that’s true, then why do you make a complaint that McCain has not addressed the issues?
>>He’s afraid the American people want something different, and it’s not him.>>
Maybe this is true – that they want something different – but do they actually know what the “something different” is? Do you think the American people want socialism?
>>He’s afraid the condition of the economy will lead people to vote for Obama.>>
So are we all – especially with the Democrats lying about their role in the condition of the economy.
I simply cannot believe that Chris Dodd – who took more money in donations from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in a period where he was _chairman_ of the committee on financial regulation than any other Senator in the _entire_ Senate – and Barney Frank – who had a ten year affair with the head of Fannie Mae while protesting that the affair had no effect on his functioning on the same financial committee – are going to be _investigating_ “how we got to this point”.
What blind stupidity!! Of course, no more “stupid” than having Jamie Gorelick – who devised the rules that established the wall that prevented information about in country terrorists being communicated between the FBI and the CIA – as a member of the board “investigating” how 9/11 could have happened.
As far as I’m concerned, that kind of stupidity can be explained by only one thing – corruption in the Senate.
More on that corruption thingy:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/nancys-swamp-continues-to-overflow.html
Helen,
Let’s take a small step back: The question is: who is fit to be President when we are facing terrible economic turmoil?
It is certainly reasonable to question Barack Obama’s readiness to handle the American economy. Should I listen only to today’s talking points by the Obama campaign?
I don’t want to see a radical, collectivist leftist as President. I know where that leads. Everyone paying attention knows where it leads. The problem is: Unconvinced voters don’t know that Obama is a radical leftist collectivist.
Make them aware of that, and his ability to manage the US economy is called into question, as it should be.
You, Helen, are convinced that McCain cannot handle the economy. Here in Book’s domain, we tend to disagree.
I might also ask: Can you point to one thing, even one, in Obama’s past, where he has succeeded at something that indicates that he can handle our economy?
I’ve looked; I cannot find it.
Chicago Annenberg Challenge with William Ayers (Ayers NOT as a terrorist but as a radical leftist) : Evaluated by the national Annenberg Challenge as having no effect. $160 million spent on radicalizing youth, not one penny for core educational instruction. Result: No effect. Now THERE’S a success!
Chicago Housing Reform for the urban poor (with Tony Rezko) : Obama coordinated the money and assigned it to a group of selected developers. Result: Massive Failure. The targeted neighborhoods were extremely poor and black. The housing built for them is now condemned, boarded up, dangerous. The black poor of Obama’s Chicago are demonstrably worse off due to Obama, while Obama’s rich friends skated away with millions. Corruption and complete failure.
In the US Senate, nothing but signing on as co-sponsor to bills led by others. Leadership? None.
Where are Obama’s successes? They don’t exist. I can’t bear the thought of this fellow, with such a rich leftist collectivist history, managing our economy. Nothing could be more frightening to me.
If the American people, all those unconvinced voters out there, ever get a hint of this knowledge – which the media is preventing them from hearing – you will see a very different picture come Election Day. You talk about McCain’s fears, but you sure don’t talk about Obama’s fears, and this is where they reside.
I will grant you this: A massive economic crisis always hurts the party of the current President. But to say McCain fears talking about the economy is missing the point. Pay attention to tomorrow’s debate: I guarantee you that John McCain will not avoid the economy. This makes your point moot.
Mike, I can’t believe you left out the works Obama published as a law student and then law professor which showed his deep understanding of…of…
Damn, I’m sure those works are around here somewhere, let me Google them and get back to you…
Ronald,
It’s not the first time I’ve brought up the issue of Obama’s failures at reform. Look, I believe the guy genuinely wants to succeed! He cares! But all the care and concern won’t bring one iota of success.
He spent *loads* of effort on health care reform while in the Illinois Senate. His success there? A task force that generated recommendations for reform, not one of which has been enacted. He did show skill at managing coalitions and creating legislation that got the task force together, which was *not* easy. But a task force issues recommendations; that’s what they do. There is no legislative accomplishment there. I’m trying to be fair, but come on, Americans! A task force got organized, and issued recommendations! Is *that* success!?!?!
I guess I’m disappointed in “Americans” in general. You’ve got a hope and change, reform candidate, and the American public seems to not even be asking, “What’s his record? Why should I believe he will accomplish good things?”
Maybe this focus on Obama’s character will translate into Americans taking a good hard look at the guy. A good hard look is all that’s necessary. The rest will follow.
(First, I should make it clear I was joking about Obama’s published works…another interesting feature of his career is that he not only avoided the tough votes, but he managed to get through law school and being a law professor without publishing anything substantive. Unusual, I hear!)
It’s not the first time I’ve brought up the issue of Obama’s failures at reform. Look, I believe the guy genuinely wants to succeed!
I’m sure he wants to succeed, and that he genuinely cares about making the world what he thinks of as a better place.
However, I don’t think we can say, at this time, that his definition of success includes any type of reform, at least political reform. He has always campaigned on reform, but he has never actually enacted it, probably because it would cost political support. He has also signed onto reforms done by others, or reforms put together and made ready for him to take ownership of (Emil Jones would do this for him frequently), but he hasn’t, that I’m aware of, ever done the hard work of actually making sure reform passes and then sticks.
Presumably as President he will attempt to enact his version of reform on the financial sector, and the health sector and such. As we saw with Clinton, that stuff is tough to get done, but perhaps with a Congress chomping at the bit to regulate without fear of veto they will get things through (probably to the detriment of all of us).
However, I will be surprised if any serious political or ethical reform occurs under Obama. McCain spent years grinding away at his ill-considered reform bill until he could get it passed over the objections of both parties; we just haven’t seen that kind of will-power with Obama.
But, perhaps like a Supreme Court candidate who shows his true colors once he gets the job, Obama will surprise us all.
If he does, we may regret even that…a President who promises much and delivers little may be less damaging than a President and Congress who join together to “just do something” about a lot of things that impact our lives…
>>he managed to get through law school and being a law professor without publishing anything substantive.>>
I think it’s been substantiated that he was _not_ a law professor, but rather a lecturer. Even that may be a substantial accomplishment, but it’s not the same thing, if I understand correctly.
Back to the title: Because Democrats post SNL skits and Republicans attack former pastors!!
Because Democrats pull SNL Skits written by phenomenally courageous writers, whenever their powerful benefactors become disgruntled. Democrats: The Party Of Principle!
Because Republicans attack – wait just a second. Attack!?! With machetes, I assume? Did they chop off his hands? Extract his lying, vicious, monstrous, racist tongue with red hot pincers? No… they criticized his vicious, unreasoning, near-insane hatred of America. Oh, the Horror! The Horror Of It All! Daring to be critical! Those Republican monsters! Daring to voice criticism means “attack”, and it means “evil”.
Campaign Finance Reform is coming back to bite McCain. The value of the press as a campaign tool was never calculated by McCain. He’s learning the difficulty of overcoming inertia.
The Democrat message– vote for us and the government will give you more stuff (healthcare, clean air, beautiful children, etc.)
The traditional Republican message- We can’t afford all this stuff, you can do it better yourself if you try harder.
Since it takes X number of times for a message to be “heard” by a person, the Republican message, by the nature of it being a more complicated message to communicate, requires an advantage in dollars, since money=speech.
Add to this the fact the media by virtue of its liberalism, naturally reinforces the Democrat message, will require even more money to overcome. Republicans don’t have enough money.
Let’s hope I am wrong.
Back to the title: Because Democrats post SNL skits and Republicans attack former pastors!!
The only person not discussing the issues here is Helen.