He wants more government regulation as a solution. He gives Obama the benefit of the doubt, still. And he believes that we are wrong in saying the Left is full of narcissists, either because the liberals he knows aren’t narcissists, because he doesn’t feel comfortable psychoanalyzing people he hasn’t met, or because he continues to give them the benefit of the doubt that they think and act just like he thinks and acts.

Now this would categorically place him in Neo’s subject matter as a liberal that cares, but at the same time still feels they owe loyalty to the party or at least certain ideas from the party. This provides context for the internal debate at Neo’s site concerning whether liberals have ‘good intentions’, or whether they, like fake liberals, have evil intentions, or whether the consequences of our actions are exactly the same as the intent of our actions.
 
I’m not the best judge of character, but I do tend to notice what others miss. It didn’t take me long to read the background on Johnston’s links, provided here, to differentiate what his views were from what his views looked like. For his views looked like a cookie cutter big government fake liberal’s, in point of fact. Fake liberals don’t care about others; they only care about themselves. If Johnston was such a person, he would have sacrificed his client’s best interests for his own personal political view of what is or is isn’t valid. He would not have admitted any truth concerning unions, republicans being blocked by dems in congress on ERISA, or any such thing.
 
Those at Neo-Neocon go through the same process, although with more distortion given that it isn’t isolated between two people. And presumably they also don’t look up Johnston’s comments and links to analyze his personality and actions.
 
This relates directly to Obama and the Left. I say it is valid for conservatives to accurately catalog the Left as narcissists both because of general trends we see, specific individuals in public, but more importantly, specific individuals we have known personally and seen their narcissistic track record. Johnston and many of the Democrat party or moderate center, believe differently. They believe their friends and social group can’t be like that. That it is an extreme attempt at polarization, exactly the same as Bush hatred.
 
As I said at my blog, what matters isn’t what it ‘looks’ like to you. What matters is whether it is true; what matters is whether the hatred is justified, consistent, or integral.
 
People seem to think civility is a goal in itself. It is only ever a means to an end. It is a tool people use to allow others to live their lives in a public and private space. Civility allows society to progress without the dog eat dog or crab pulling high achieving crabs back in the bucket, class warfare that we have seen so far.
 
As a tool, it does not invalidate truth or virtues.
 
Either all those narcissists we saw in real life are narcissists or they are ‘misunderstood’ Democrats that ‘really really’ care. As evidenced by Bookworm and Neo’s personal experiences, valued and wise judgment utilizing reason over emotion, we all know what the answer to that is.
 
The evidence does not favor the Democrat’s attempt to claim innocence on this matter. No advocate, including Johnston, can make a claim that all liberals are reasonable and honest like him, without the evidence to back it up. Or without proof that our claims are erroneous. The evidence is on our side. This is not a court of law or psychological session, thankfully, so all that matters is whether we can change reality, not change people’s perception of reality.
 
So far, Democrats, of whatever stripe or ideological devotion, have proven incapable of controlling their own. Conservatives have been much better at controlling the behavior of fringe groups, advocates for violence, or any other such similar phenomenon.
 
The evidence is not in their favor. And they can either circle the wagons with the tribal instinct of ‘defend the territory and the victim-slaves’ or they can open up and start reforms. They either do it or we’ll try to do it for them. Theoretically, I hypothesis that they would rather do it to themselves rather than have us do it for them. In terms of brainwashing and behavioral control, of course. I mention nothing about taxes or ‘health care’.
 
For me to question as invalid my ability to judge people that I know, the actions that I know they have taken, as either good or evil, would mean that I could no longer judge Bookworm’s character. That I also could not determine or claim that Johnston is an honest advocate of his client’s interests, who doesn’t obey PC or political loyalty over the welfare of individuals. That, after all, is what multicultural ‘judgment’ was supposed to create: the doubt that we can know reality for what it is, not just simply what we would like it to be. And I do not accept the validity of that philosophy.
 
 
It is not the ability that is invalid. We all have ability. What can be wrong is our individual character assessments. But that is easily proven or disproven. Take Obama, for example. Take Ayers. I don’t know those two personally, but do I need to given their public record of actions? They can’t cover up their actions or the consequences of it in a nation devoted to freedom of information and distributed network of data sources.
 
 
The Left may claim that the majority of psychologists are Democrat, not conservative, as a defense. For these psychologists tend to produce ‘studies’ concerning how conservatives are naturally bigoted, intellectually stunted, xenophobic, and so forth. They propose that they used ‘scientific principles’. Of course, that’s not true. Their experiments are hopelessly biased. But the Left will try to claim that what we do, when we call them narcissists, is the same as what the Leftist psychologists do when they talk about conservative delusions. Tu quoque quid pro quo or some such.
 
But it isn’t true. We should pay no concern to it. They can’t prove that their accusations are even consistent, let alone true, while we can with our own arguments. Of course, proof by itself requires a mutually shared objectivity reality, so while we may prove it in the realm of logic, we cannot prove it to the rather delusional and in denial Leftists. Take any subject of American history, including Iraq, and the Left will take a 180 degree position in terms of ‘facts’ and especially philosophy. And that will change depending on where you are at policy wise, thus creating  a tidally locked system where they are always 180 degrees away. Now that may seem reasonable to people, but it doesn’t to me.
 
As Book once wrote, have the Left ever heard themselves talk? We certainly have. If they think their mishmash of incomplete and inconsistent arguments are ‘logical’, then they should go audition for a Vulcan role in Star Trek.
 
 
On a greater strategic front, many people voted for Obama precisely because they thought as Richard Johnston stated before. They don’t realize the problems of the Democrat party. They think they should fix ‘America’s problem first. But America’s problems started inside the Democrat party, so… It is just a fundamentally different world view with all Leftists and most Democrats, even the self-proclaimed moderates, such as “Ozzie” that was once here.
 
 
Until Americans realize what the Democrat party has been doing, the truth of all the lies, how can they make an informed decision on politics? They can’t. Thus, Obama. That’s the point of the entire decades long March Through Institutions. People, now, no longer have the tools to judge what is or is not real, what is or is not true, what is or is not a ‘fact’.
 
 
And in case my position on this is not yet clear, I think that propaganda victory is far more potent a weapon than the entire US nuclear ballistic submarine fleet.