My Problems with the American Right

Actually, I am just ripping off Draginol's title -- I do not have a problem with the American Right in general. Many of the people I know best outside my family would fall somewhere between center-right and right. I have great sympathy for the social right, disagree pretty much with the business right, and think the neocons way, way off -- but none bother me nearly as much as the apathetic, so I am not really complaining. I just argue my point and listen to theirs.

So who do I have a problem with? After reading Draginol's piece and mulling it over, I realize that it is mostly the "blogging right" that I have a problem with. I find the tone of much of this group unbearable, and it boils down the persistent smell of victimhood. You read through conservative blogs, and you would never know that their man just won re-election, making it 5 of 7 presidential terms Republican, and they control both halves of Congress. One of the four major networks openly seeks their group as an audience, the most listened to talk radio host is committed to their cause... I could go on, but you get the point.

From where I stand, the blogging right has become the epitome of sore winners. Although Karl Rove clearly won the war of spin, they continue to pull out startling evidence that their opponents dared to spin various issues during the election. Although they had the best army of lawyers money could buy ready to prosecute any legal battles in case of a close election, they continue to whine about the fact that the Democrats were doing the same. Although any objective analysis would show that both sides fought a filthy campaign, the right wing bloggers continue to dwell on Democratic misdeeds.

Whining is for losers, and it is not indicative of high character. It is even less attractive in winners.

However, I had a thought: Although there is evidence that the more financially successful tend to vote Republican, there is also evidence that the more highly educated tend to vote Democrat. That's kind of a weird pair of facts, when placed side by side, and it got me thinking. Who are all these right wing bloggers, who seem so deficient in character, yet generally sound well educated?

Karl Rove himself was the epitome of the highly intelligent young man who outdid most of his peers intellectually while failing to fit in socially. This probably figured in his political career, in that he took delight in taking the contrarian point of view back when campuses were so left-wing during the Vietnam era -- and he reveled in humiliating those who were more socially successful. You could say that the scars of being a social outsider during his formative years gave him the impetus to fight on, never resting in victory, always looking to push another opponent's face into the dirt. It was his sense of being mistreated by the mainstream that made him what he is, and he retains the hunger of a long time loser, despite his string of victories.

Bloggers are by and large intelligent and well educated, and I have a strong hunch that many, many right wing bloggers share a bit of the Rove background. They have dealt with a preponderance of educated people more liberal than themselves. They may have turned conservative because they didn't fit in, or they may have been sneered at because they were conservative, but in either case they have a permanent case of feeling put upon by the world. No victory is going to assuage these feelings, and this is especially so because the most educated (and frequently the most socially prominent) continue to reject their views. You do not have to read very far on these forums to pick up the sore feelings regarding this.

I have known several such individuals during my life, mostly back in my school years. The type unanimously embraces tactics over all else. They love formal debating rules. Clever arguments delight them. If you were to say that you were run off the road by a black car, their fondest dream would be to sidetrack you by challenging you as to whether the car might possibly have been navy blue, and whether, considering that your left wheel never actually left the road, you could claim to have been run off the road... The fact that such tactics inevitably leave opponents feeling morally superior just enhances the sense such people have of being put upon.

My problems with the Blogging Right boil down to this:
* They are in love with tactics. A few months ago in a thread regarding the merits of right wing and left wing posters, Draginol boasted that he thought conservative posters were more disciplined. He's right -- the Blogging Right will never concede an inch because it is simply bad tactics.... Or, regarding Clarke's accusations, we got the response "It has been denied" -- the principle of plausible denial. The Blogging Right perceives no difference between "It works as a debate tactic" and "it gets us closer to the truth."
* They get all bent out of shape that their opponents feel morally superior, when, in truth, such is the natural outcome of too-clever-by-a half arguments.
* They have rabbit ears. After a victory, they can pick out the few hecklers in a crowd -- and they so much want to go brawl with them. They feel so much the outsider, so put upon in life, that they are just unable to concede that they have won and get on with life.
4,815 views 7 replies
Reply #1 Top

If you think the left is somehow more willing to compromise then I suggest you take your head out of the sand and look around.

I concede points quite regularly when I feel I've been proven wrong.  But very rarely does that seem to happen here because most of my opponents seem inclined to argue from feeling and emotion.

Conservates do tend to be more self-disciplined about all walks of life. That's why we tend to do better in the real world materially.

We also don't get bent out of shape that liberals are arrogant.  Rather, we are TRYING to explain to you why you guys keep losing.  Take our advice for what it's worth. 

Many conservatives, such as myself, feel like we have to debate with the kiddy gloves on.  Our natural inclination is to be more tolerant of intellectual diversity.  That's more due to having to tread lightly because of liberal dominated academia and liberal dominated media being ready to jump on us the moment we show any real militancy.

Liberals have no reason to feel morally or intellectually superior.  In my debates with liberals I see time and time again a kind of lazy, half-assed quasi-intellectualism on their parts. In short, they're intellectual wannabes. Most of their positions, in my opinion, are based on superficial thinking.

Let me give you a typical example: Liberals will complain about "Bush's deficits".  But they don't really have a plan to solve the problem. They think tax cuts caused the deficit. It's that kind of ignorance that's frustrating. Many liberals have only a surface understanding of the issues they so passionately debate. 

Conservatives aren't looking to pick a fight.  But we are going to respond to asinine articles claiming that Bush won because of anti-gay sentiment or other such typical half-baked left wing beliefs. 

To be perfectly crude: Your side lost because it came across to the majority of Americans as being made up of a bunch of assholes. If the left wants to start diong better in elections, they need to quit coming across as assholes.

Reply #2 Top
but, draginol.....just about everywhere you look......the exact opposite is what is happening....heh....have you ever been to Quarter to Three's forums (the politics & religion forum)? WOW......so much anti-Christian, anti-Bush, anti-anything that republicans have ever done.....
Reply #3 Top
but, draginol.....just about everywhere you look......the exact opposite is what is happening....heh....have you ever been to Quarter to Three's forums (the politics & religion forum)? WOW......so much anti-Christian, anti-Bush, anti-anything that republicans have ever done....


The right is willing to accept that the most radical groups on the fringes are in the mainstream of the Democratic party, or are what liberals actually stand for. It could not be further from the truth.
Many liberals have only a surface understanding of the issues they so passionately debate.



I thought you claimed the left called those who voted for Bush to be ignorant. Now you claim those on the left to be ignorant.

To be perfectly crude: Your side lost because it came across to the majority of Americans as being made up of a bunch of assholes. If the left wants to start diong better in elections, they need to quit coming across as assholes.


We had 49% of the vote. I think your majority of Americans claim is pretty thin. I think there's assholes on both sides.
Reply #4 Top
Most of their positions, in my opinion, are based on superficial thinking.
For what it is worth, almost all conservative posting I have seen around here has struck me in exactly the same way... The typical formula is go cite "facts" from a right wing spin source and then claim superiority to the poor fools on the left that get their information from left-leaning sources.

Liberals will complain about "Bush's deficits". But they don't really have a plan to solve the problem. They think tax cuts caused the deficit. It's that kind of ignorance that's frustrating.
There are two pieces to this formulation. Calling deficits "Bush's deficits" is just political boilerplate. The president will always get credit for good economic news and will always get blame for bad economic news (especially when the president's party controls Congress!) -- and I would bet my firstborn that the vast majority of conservatives on this site would jump to do the same if the sitation had been reversed. However, I do not personally believe for a moment that any president would have avoided at least a substantial chunk of the problem, given the situation the past four years.

However, the tax cuts are a significant issue, especially in regards to what happens to the deficit. Tax cuts will have a highly significant impact on where the deficit is two or four years from now -- and, I cannot believe that you would claim otherwise. Some would argue that the net result of the tax cuts would be to reduce the deficit, but it is certainly not ignorance to believe otherwise!

Rather, we are TRYING to explain to you why you guys keep losing. Take our advice for what it's worth.
That is hardly the tone of what I am reading, but if that is your intention, it is still takes some gall. This was a World Series decided late in game 7 -- we had a winner, but no clear sense of overwhelming superiority. When an incumbent president has that much difficulty holding onto his position, his side is probably not in a position of lecturing.

But we are going to respond to asinine articles claiming that Bush won because of anti-gay sentiment or other such typical half-baked left wing beliefs.
Yes, a return to clever tactics...

It is routine for the winner to exaggerate the mandate and the loser to minimize the mandate, and the problem has gotten worse since issues have gone onto the back burner during recent elections. In theory, the size of the victory and the issue emphasis defines the poltical capital to be spent.

One problem with the kind of campaign we just witnessed -- it is not at all clear what has been decided (other than the identity of the winner).
Kerry would have been entitled to very little other than "not Bush" and Bush is arguably entitled only to some socially conservative initiatives (particularly anti gays) and a free hand in fighting terrorism. Everything else is an open question. I predict that Bush will get his way, in large part because the mainstream media that the right hates so much will be more than happy to go along with the bait and switch. If Bush backs off on social conservatism and instead pushes the class warfare part of his agenda, the networks will be quite happy, and my read of it is that that is Bush's intention. (The networks are running lots of stuff questioning the abortion initiatives, but they have decided to call privatization of social security "modernization of social security" -- pretty clear tipping of the hand.)

Anyway, back to my point -- nothing unusual about this spat, the mirror image would have occurred if Kerry had won. The objectional, too-clever-by-a-half aspect of it is the culling of the internet for the fringe elements of the left to villify, as a tactic for discounting the closeness of the election.

To be perfectly crude: Your side lost because it came across to the majority of Americans as being made up of a bunch of assholes. If the left wants to start diong better in elections, they need to quit coming across as assholes.
You are entitled to your perceptions. My perception is that your side nearly lost, despite incumbency and a weak opponent, because your side is evil -- a disgrace to the American tradition.

And you know what? I bet if we could put to the American public two separate votes: Are the Democrats assholes, and are Republicans evil, there would be an excellent chance of a yes vote on both propositions.
Reply #5 Top

Reply #3 By: whoman69 - 11/21/2004 3:26:01 PM
We had 49% of the vote. I think your majority of Americans claim is pretty thin. I think there's assholes on both sides.


Guess again. You only had 48.1% of the vote. The majority grows! And BTW I wouldn't call 5 million votes that slim a margin. And lets not forget over 30 EC votes.
Link

Reply #6 Top

Reply #4 By: Don Bemont - 11/21/2004 4:19:19 PM
You are entitled to your perceptions. My perception is that your side nearly lost, despite incumbency and a weak opponent, because your side is evil -- a disgrace to the American tradition.


How do you figure that? GW won by the biggest margin since *before* Ronald Reagan.
Reply #7 Top
How do you figure that? GW won by the biggest margin since *before* Ronald Reagan.
It is fitting that you would post such a statement in this particular thread.

As I said in my article, my conservative acquaintances don't bother me a bit -- because not a one would make such a statement. They might explain why they think I am wrong on Iraq. They might argue with me on the wisdom of changing the tax code. But they don't make (or parrot) these too-clever distortions.

drmiler, the electoral vote was 285-252 -- with one close state, Ohio, deciding the election. According to the unaligned Wikapedia:
Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.8% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (just under 3.4 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948.
Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254.
Bush received the largest number of votes of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history. Kerry, however, also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election, though not as many as Bush in this election.


I can guarantee you, drmiler, that, if Bush and Kerry had reversed their results, you would have had a cow over any Democratic claim of "biggest margins" of any flavor.

This sort of thing just epitomizes what bothers me about right wing bloggers. They would find some way to claim that a whale was bigger than a mouse. Of course, I realize that you are just parrotting some other source here -- I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that the kind of people who get you to swallow such stuff are probably also distorting the rest of the news you get too?