The Plot Against Liberal America

[Varian P]

Conservatives don't want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition.

Mainstream American political commentary customarily assumes that the two political parties do whatever they do as mirror images of each other; that if one is guilty of some misstep, the other is equally culpable. But there is no symmetry. Liberalism, as we know it, arose out of a compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. It depends on the efficient functioning of certain organs of the state; it does not call for all-out war on private industry.

Conservatism, on the other hand, speaks not of compromise, but of removing its adversaries from the field altogether . . .

The Plot Against Liberal America by Thomas Frank

Don't worry, guys, I'll slip back into my usual frustration-induced apathy coma soon.

 

[Belegon]

Conservatives don't want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition.

Mainstream American political commentary customarily assumes that the two political parties do whatever they do as mirror images of each other; that if one is guilty of some misstep, the other is equally culpable. But there is no symmetry. Liberalism, as we know it, arose out of a compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. It depends on the efficient functioning of certain organs of the state; it does not call for all-out war on private industry.

Conservatism, on the other hand, speaks not of compromise, but of removing its adversaries from the field altogether . . .

I do think there is an element that is often declared to be conservative that holds that view.

I also hold that element to be an example of the extreme side of that discussion. What dismays me is not that such demagoguery exists... but that it is given so much credibility.

Also, I am also getting more than a little sick of someone looking at the motives of Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and assuming that because I oppose their POV I must be similarly extreme in the other direction.

Am I a liberal? By the current definitions, I would have to say yes. But I believe in compromise and feel that it is destructive and hurtful to watch when engaging in compromise is defined as betrayal of one's ideals.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

No one's going to read that article,V.

Interesting point, though, that Bush intentionally ran up the deficit (as did Reagan, and Bush I) by cutting taxes and increasing spending in order to starve liberal programs. Starving the Beast they call it, right?

 

[Misty_Morning]

Conservatives don't want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition.

Mainstream American political commentary customarily assumes that the two political parties do whatever they do as mirror images of each other; that if one is guilty of some misstep, the other is equally culpable. But there is no symmetry. Liberalism, as we know it, arose out of a compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. It depends on the efficient functioning of certain organs of the state; it does not call for all-out war on private industry.

Conservatism, on the other hand, speaks not of compromise, but of removing its adversaries from the field altogether . . .

The Plot Against Liberal America by Thomas Frank

Don't worry, guys, I'll slip back into my usual frustration-induced apathy coma soon.

No....been on both sides of the fence. Liberals tend scream and shout thinking that they, and only they are right...because "No one else could be as SMRT as them...."

One of the main reasons I changed my polital party was the fact that "the other folks" debate....logically. (well, for the most part...)

And if the the opponents continue with the ranting and raving....fuck em....just ignore em till they learn some come uppins....


Stop trying to educate me...I guarantee I gots mo learin that you .....(Not you Varian :smile

 

[john-the-author]

I do think there is an element that is often declared to be conservative that holds that view.

I also hold that element to be an example of the extreme side of that discussion. What dismays me is not that such demagoguery exists... but that it is given so much credibility.

Also, I am also getting more than a little sick of someone looking at the motives of Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and assuming that because I oppose their POV I must be similarly extreme in the other direction.

Am I a liberal? By the current definitions, I would have to say yes. But I believe in compromise and feel that it is destructive and hurtful to watch when engaging in compromise is defined as betrayal of one's ideals.

I agree with you. Ann Coulter is a psychotic bitch, there's little doubt to this. Pat Buchanan is an active admirer of Adolf Hitler (there are many quotes from him about this.) Pat Robertson is an evil little man who funds terrorism in Liberia and should be sent to meet whatever maker would claim him. What's so disturbing is that there are millions of people who think that these people are the voice of reason and guidance.

Jesus and Thomas Jefferson were the liberals. Pilate and King George III were the conservatives. And Coulter, Buchanan, Robertson, and George II are all fascists. We know what to do with fascists.

 

[TE999]

I'm sorry, but any book whose title contains the word 'plot' and isn't about writing gives me the distinct impression this is written by a paranoid wack-job; be s/he of the Left, Right or Sideways political persuasion.

First we had Anarchist Plots, then Zionist Plots, then Nazi Plots, then Commie Plots, now Conservative Plots. There's always a bogeyman to blame when things aren't going your way.

As the old joke goes: "Maybe you aren't paranoid. Maybe they're really out to get you."

 

[Carnevil9]

Conservatives don't want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition.

I find this patently offensive. I'm a conservative, and I LOVE to debate. My hope (pathetic and misplaced though it probably is) is that someday, somwhere, somehow, one liberal pinhead will see the light and come around to the ways of wisdom and logic and correctitude, and my life will not have been lived for naught. As the great man said, "I have a dream!!"

 

[Misty_Morning]

As the old joke goes: "Maybe you aren't paranoid. Maybe they're really out to get you."

Not a joke....when my ex was in med school doing psych rounds...one of his patients did a "Rambo"...and his question to my ex was..."How do you know KNOW they aren't out to get you?"

 

[Varian P]

I do think there is an element that is often declared to be conservative that holds that view.

I also hold that element to be an example of the extreme side of that discussion. What dismays me is not that such demagoguery exists... but that it is given so much credibility.

Also, I am also getting more than a little sick of someone looking at the motives of Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and assuming that because I oppose their POV I must be similarly extreme in the other direction.

Am I a liberal? By the current definitions, I would have to say yes. But I believe in compromise and feel that it is destructive and hurtful to watch when engaging in compromise is defined as betrayal of one's ideals.

I think the article is talking about a select set of policy-makers, rather than a wide swath of folks who see themselves in the conservative camp. It's always prickly when an author/article labels a faction "conservative" or "liberal" when discussing the extremes of either the left or the right.

 

[TE999]

Not a joke....when my ex was in med school doing psych rounds...one of his patients did a "Rambo"...and his question to my ex was..."How do you know KNOW they aren't out to get you?"

Well, you don't...not really.

It would seem that reality, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[cloudy]

No....been on both sides of the fence. Liberals tend scream and shout thinking that they, and only they are right...because "No one else could be as SMRT as them...."

One of the main reasons I changed my polital party was the fact that "the other folks" debate....logically. (well, for the most part...)

And if the the opponents continue with the ranting and raving....fuck em....just ignore em till they learn some come uppins....


Stop trying to educate me...I guarantee I gots mo learin that you .....(Not you Varian :smile

This is logical? :

What about my freedom to hire or fire somebody because I do or do not like color of his skin?

um...okay. Love you, girl, but your definition of logical is much different than mine.

 

[Varian P]

No one's going to read that article,V.

Interesting point, though, that Bush intentionally ran up the deficit (as did Reagan, and Bush I) by cutting taxes and increasing spending in order to starve liberal programs. Starving the Beast they call it, right?

A major point of the article, which I found unsettling:

While no one dreams of sawing off those branches of the state that protect conservatism's constituents -- the military, the police, legal privileges granted to corporations -- conservatives openly fantasize about doing away with the bits of "big government" that serve liberal ends. While de-funding the left is the north star of the conservative project, there is no comparable campaign to "de-fund the right"; indeed, it would be difficult to imagine one.

Is that because the military and police are fundamentally less expendable than, say, education and healthcare?

Or is it that we can all agree we'd rather that local law-enforcement and "homeland security" not be left to vigilantes and militias, while we're divided on whether it should be each man, woman and child for herself when it comes to buying an education and paying the doctor's bills?

It seems to me that the benefits of ensuring law and order are maintained, and that the country isn't invaded, are immediately tangible to most people. On the other hand, it's easy to suppose that I only benefit from ensuring that me and mine are well-educated and in good health. If those people over there are illiterate, malnourished, and perishing from disease, it's their problem, not mine. Heck, undereducated, vulnerable people make a pretty convenient workforce to exploit.

Is it that liberals are deluded in thinking that having a healthy, educated population benefits the country as a whole?

Or is it just selfishness versus compassion?

 

[Varian P]

No....been on both sides of the fence. Liberals tend scream and shout thinking that they, and only they are right...because "No one else could be as SMRT as them...."

One of the main reasons I changed my polital party was the fact that "the other folks" debate....logically. (well, for the most part...)

And if the the opponents continue with the ranting and raving....fuck em....just ignore em till they learn some come uppins....


Stop trying to educate me...I guarantee I gots mo learin that you .....(Not you Varian :smile

I don't know . . . from where I sit, both sides seem to claim they are the smart ones with the logical arguments.

 

[Misty_Morning]

This is logical? :



um...okay. Love you, girl, but your definition of logical is much different than mine.

thats more than OK. Differnt Stokes.
I think the most important thang is to remember that people can have differences of opinion....and still be freinds.

Without that we are doomed.

I mean...cmon....everyone has an opnion....lets celebrate them....thats whats makes us unique.

I love the fact that I have friends that are liberal, conservative, muslim, christian, hindi, aetheist, agnostic and heathen(thats me!)....

Everyones logic is slightly different.

Ain't it beautiful?


Ain't it grand?

I think it is.


And lets make a pact to never "give up" just cuz we don't agree with the other folks!.


Lets celebrate our differences!

 

[Varian P]

I'm sorry, but any book whose title contains the word 'plot' and isn't about writing gives me the distinct impression this is written by a paranoid wack-job; be s/he of the Left, Right or Sideways political persuasion.

First we had Anarchist Plots, then Zionist Plots, then Nazi Plots, then Commie Plots, now Conservative Plots. There's always a bogeyman to blame when things aren't going your way.

As the old joke goes: "Maybe you aren't paranoid. Maybe they're really out to get you."

Yep, I think the title of the article is terribly unfortunate, for that very reason.

The substance of the argument, though, points to deliberate strategies.

The Strategy to Defeat Liberal America. That's what Frank should have titled his article if he didn't want to predispose even his most sympathetic readers to expect a paranoid rant.

 

[Belegon]

Lets celebrate our differences!

An attitude that many more of us need to have.

The last thing I want is for everyone to always agree with me...

 

[Misty_Morning]

I don't know . . . from where I sit, both sides seem to claim they are the smart ones with the logical arguments.

Yep....they do...and thus makes the debate. And without the debate we would just be .....just be....without a voice.

 

[Varian P]

I find this patently offensive. I'm a conservative, and I LOVE to debate.

Fair enough. The article should have read, rather, "A select group of conservative policy-makers don't want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition."

My hope (pathetic and misplaced though it probably is) is that someday, somwhere, somehow, one liberal pinhead will see the light and come around to the ways of wisdom and logic and correctitude, and my life will not have been lived for naught. As the great man said, "I have a dream!!"

Well, there's something pathetic and misplaced, there. Not sure it's your hope.

 

[Misty_Morning]

An attitude that many more of us need to have.

The last thing I want is for everyone to always agree with me...

I agree wholeheartedly with you....LOL!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Why does this seem to mirror the right-wing paranoia of the John Birch Society? Because that is what it reminds me of...not to offend anyone, but that as an ex-Bircher, the parallels are unavoidable. I finally left the JBS because the group's paranoia about globalism and its militant, secret, fundamentalist agenda became clearer over time.

 

[cloudy]

thats more than OK. Differnt Stokes.
I think the most important thang is to remember that people can have differences of opinion....and still be freinds.

Without that we are doomed.

I mean...cmon....everyone has an opnion....lets celebrate them....thats whats makes us unique.

I love the fact that I have friends that are liberal, conservative, muslim, christian, hindi, aetheist, agnostic and heathen(thats me!)....

Everyones logic is slightly different.

Ain't it beautiful?


Ain't it grand?

I think it is.


And lets make a pact to never "give up" just cuz we don't agree with the other folks!.


Lets celebrate our differences!

"racist" does not equal "beautiful." Sorry.

 

[Misty_Morning]

"racist" does not equal "beautiful." Sorry.

Where did "racist" come into play here? Did I miss something?

Just asking....

I am confused....?

 

[DeeZire]

An interesting aspect of this situation is the way the cons got way ahead of the game by framing the issues to make the so-called debate more favorable to their side. One example of this is the way they managed to turn 'liberal' into a bad word. Think about it. Would Jesus Christ be considered a liberal or a conservative if he were walking around today, damning the 'money changers' and helping the poor? So here we have the cons claiming the high ground because they support Christian values, when the founder of those Christian values is an evil liberal. Talk about hypocrisy!

There was an excellent book out on the subject of framing the issues a few years back. Hopefully, the lib think tanks have read it and are planning on utilizing the tactics to gain some of the ground they have lost.

These days, the so-called debate has degenerated into a game of character assassination, using the half-truths and innuendo of conservative talk radio and the propaganda campaign championed by FOX news. If I were conservative, I would not be proud of these 'debate' tactics. If the cons used these tactics on a debate team, they'd get kicked out of the match before it even got off the ground.

I would agree with other posters that the plot referred to in the article is not a conscious decision made by red state voters, but rather a tool of right wing think tanks to bring about change that would benefit their cause - a cause that has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or the common good.

As to the question of who's smarter, I would claim that the right succeeds because of the ignorance and gullibility of their followers (Iraq was behind 9/11?) while the libs count on the intelligence and compassion of their constituency to figure out the validity of the positions they take on the issues.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What I've read of Mr. Frank doesn't impress me. His article in Harper's was a pro-Communist rant about how wicked the contras and UNITA were, etc. Never mind the brutality of the MPLA in Angola and the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and how both had betrayed the trust of those who considered them liberators.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Conservatism is the process of growing up! Sooner or later people realize that there is no tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, or benevolent government nanny to take care of them.

Liberals dont love America. Liberals disparage American traditions and institutions, and swoon over every quack with a nutty idea and stall at the county fair. Liberals earned their own bad name from the goofy stunts they pull, and no one wants to listen to their radio talk shows.

If I ruled the world I'd hang every liberal I could catch. Youre sick puppies. You know it, everyone knows it.