Home › Blogs › Daniel Ruwe's blog ›

Liberal versus Conservative Stupidity

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 23:43

Crossposted at Right Minds

Sarah Palin is firmly fixed in the minds of millions of Americans as a mindless bimbo. George Bush is supposed to be a helpless idiot. Dick Cheney is Darth Vader; John McCain a dangerous hyperconservative. Republican voters are supposed to be either mouthbreathing, probably racist rednecks or wealthy plutocrats.

These images are so prevalent mostly because of pop culture—Sarah Palin’s “bimbo” status was confirmed by Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impressions, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher push the “Bush is an idiot” meme, and Hollywood almost invariably portrays conservatives unfavorably, while portraying liberals as intelligent and good.

Many, perhaps most, of our opinionmakers see the world the way Hollywood, SNL, et al. see it—conservatives are unsophisticated philistines, while liberals are cultured, with-it bright lights. And this meme spreads—around the globe, and throughout much of America, liberals are considered the good, smart guys, while conservatives are greedy, dumb yokels. It is difficult for many to even imagine that it could be the other way around.

Actually, the liberal view of conservatives is correct, or largely correct. Palin may not be a “bimbo”, but she certainly wasn’t ready (or didn’t appear ready, and appearances were all we had to go on) for the vice presidency. Bush might not be an idiot; Cheney might not be an evil overlord—but they seem to do their best to perpetuate those impressions. And many, many Republicans are mouthbreathing philistines, who are suspicious of learning, join stupid causes, and have little interest in anything that seems to challenge their beliefs.

So liberals are right about conservatives, or at least a fair proportion of them. But they overlook another point—liberals are, as a group, every bit as closed-minded, gullible, and in their own way, provincial as conservatives are.

Most conservatives don’t believe in evolution. Stupid. But most (or at least very many) liberals are firmly convinced that socialism (real socialism, not the watered down kind they have in Europe) has something to teach us; many look at Fidel Castro’s Cuba as something of a noble experiment. Many even have mixed feelings about the Soviet Union—it is difficult to find a liberal who is willing to admit that it was an evil, expansionist empire that threatened Western civilization.

Or to take another example: white guilt. In spite of the fact that institutionalized racism has been dead for nearly half a century, and that millions of welfare dollars have been spent on improving black communities (money, by the way, that I would not grudge, except that it has been mostly ineffective), and that any black who feels discriminated against can sue, virtually all liberals carry a crushing burden of guilt for crimes that they did not commit, and that ended a long time ago. In fact, I’ve had a professor explain that she didn’t identify as white because of white oppression of African-Americans. (Which is, when you think about it, a bit hard on whites with ancestry different from Angelo-Saxon. Polish-Americans, for example, weren’t into racism much).

Between these two ideas (and many others), I think that it is fair to say that liberals display critical thinking skills as poor as those found in any conservative. The Left is just as stupid as the Right—just in a different way.

Liberals pride themselves on their sophistication compared to conservatives. They shouldn’t. Jon Stewart’s job isn’t any different that Rush Limbaugh’s, and his methods aren’t any more cultured. (In fact, I think it safe to say that his act is a bit more juvenile than that found on conservative talk radio). Stewart is considered a Swiftian satirist because he is on the Left; were he a conservative, he would be a racist rabblerouser. Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow aren’t any more intelligent or balanced than their conservative counterparts—liberals only think so because they happen to be liberal. (Of course, the opposite phenomenon can be seen in conservatives; for them, Rush is genius, Olbermann an idiot).

If conservatives are closed-minded idiots, liberals are too—only in a different way. Both sides are rife with stupid theories, appalling gullibility, and absolute closed-mindedness. It simply takes different forms in the competing ideologies.  

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

Excuse Me?!?

Submitted by Cahnman on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 23:56.

This statement is insulting to America's Doctor of Democracy:

Jon Stewart’s job isn’t any different that Rush Limbaugh’s, and his methods aren’t any more cultured.

 

Much as I like Rush

Submitted by Mytheos_Holt on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 02:17.

I have to agree that he's selling the same product as Jon Stewart, even if he does it much more efficiently and with (in my opinion) a great deal more substance.

And even if you disagree, that doesn't refute the larger point - that liberal stupidity is just as obnoxious, provincial and absurd as conservative stupidity. At Thanksgiving dinner this year, I had the pleasure (italicized for the sake of irony) of witnessing a debate over politics between a guy who thought the East Germans were better off under communism and another guy who was probably a member of the John Birth Society. If ever one needed an excuse to lose faith in American politics, listening to that provided it.

oy vai! heaven forfend that either of those

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:10.

two distinguished citizens should ever hold a place in government!

Also, may the heavens themselves open up and strike Kucinich down if he ever should stand a chance of holding an executive office again! (the man is a showboat, an idealogue, and utterly incompetent as an executive.)

Of course, I should say that Kucinich is preferable to the current state of affairs in Washington. King Henry can't hold the ship of state together.

Excellent analysis

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 05:34.

But I believe the Right's problem is one more of image, while the Left's problems are more substantial and often understated.

I have applied a lot of thout to this since a recent post about the GOP's race problem.  It's clearly more image than substance.  I'll tell you, a substantial portion of the Left has a "back of the bus" mentality toward minorities (blue collar workers, et al).  I don't see that on the Right.

While the Left claims to be champions of Tolerance & Diversity, their vision of those things aaumes complete and utter homogeneity of thought; any disagreement or hesitation (which one might reasonably expect to see Tolerance & Diversity manifest themselves through differences) would serve to indicate intolerance or lack of diversity.

One of the big things going on with the Left these days is the success of Prop 8 in California.  It was the high minority turnout there that put Prop 8 over the top.  If the Dems were to truly represent those minorities, they would engage much different policies.

I'll let it go at that for now.  

I live in California.

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 06:41.

It's actually been a little scary watching liberals deal with the cognitive dissonance they're suffering as the result of some designated victim groups (blacks and Hispanics) taking sides against another designated victim group (GLBT individuals). It's actually led to some lashing out at the putative masterminds of the conspiracy to ensnare those poor ethnic minorities who obviously can't think for themselves: the Mormons.  Some Mormon churches have been vandalized, and if I'm not mistaken there've been a couple of episodes of violence.

 

yet you weren't scared of Anonymous?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:16.

... exactly why? did you decide that because they wore Guy fawkes masks, they were less worthy of condemnation?

Heck, let's condemn flash mobs too...

I'm guessing you don't live in the South...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 08:44.

People here seemingly tend to self-segregate.

civil disagreement is fine.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:15.

people who insist on equating socialism with fascism and then calling all of their ideological opponents Nazis are not.

I'm quite comfortable debating the specifics of affirmative action, trying to maximize the most intelligent of our citizens. I strongly disagree with those who think we should end affirmative action, as I find the economic arguments for it rather compelling. However, I think that the main problems with affirmative action is that there is a lack of adequate support for lower socio-economic status folks in college, and that you're somehow expecting someone who has recieved inadequate schooling to be able to keep up with people who have recieved adequate schooling. It's no wonder that black dropout rates are much much higher than whites.

Affirmative action is a failure from the beginning

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 13:47.

See Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (translated from the Portugese).

Note how the US is no closer to achieving the goals of AA after 30 years of this policy. 

Honestly?

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 08:37.

I don't know many self-identified liberals or progressives who agree with socialism. Maybe it's because I'm younger, but that seems to be a myth.

The white guilt thing? I've seen more of that.

I don't think Jon Stewart would be considered 'racist'... his show is funny, plain and simple. The interesting thing will be to see if the audience sticks when Obama gets into office and he starts ripping him too.

Not gonna happen

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 09:52.

I don't think Jon Stewart would be considered 'racist'... his show is funny, plain and simple. The interesting thing will be to see if the audience sticks when Obama gets into office and he starts ripping him too.

Stewart will treat obama with reverence and respect while viciously attacking any conservtives who get in his way.  The New York - Hollywood entertainment elite make the MSM look positively fair and balanced.  Stewart will be off the air in 2 seasons max if he tries to buck them.  Heck, even cop drama shows like Law and Order have become unwatchable due to all the propaganda they spew.

And does anyone beyond sophmore undergrads really think Jon Stewart (or Rush for that matter) is funny?  If so, this country has a serious maturity problem.

you don't think Stewart is funny?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:18.

I watch Stewart and Colbert for lessons on humor and timing. This is standard operating procedure for comics everywhere. Maybe that's why Republican comics all suck so bad? they can't be bothered to go to Chelsea to learn from masters? ($8 for a show, it's a good deal).

Tubes Stevens is a great internet meme.

Not really.

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:22.

He just plays up the old tired conservative stereotypes knowing that he will get a few yucks from his center-left audience.

yahn. figured I ought to rebut. can't be bothered

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:57.

“Here's the point - you're looking at affirmative action, and you're looking at marijuana. You legalize marijuana, no need for quotas, because really, who's gonna wanna work?”

"Julie Christie was absolutely amazing in Away From Her. Brilliant movie. It was the moving story of a woman who forgets her own husband. Hillary Clinton calls it the feel good movie of the year."

"Take Illinois Gov. Rod Bla-go-ji-ja-vich. Well, clearly this man has nothing to hide except perhaps what is written on his forehead. My guess is it's something like 'bribe me.'"

"Holy eff-in bleep. Is this guy a governor or Lil Wayne? It took Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald over two years to pin down Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice, a sentence the president immediately commuted. ... It took him six weeks for [expletive] Blagojevich to hand the prosecutor this low-hanging fruit."

"You can't say anything critical of Israel and be elected president (of USA)".

 

Jon's a great guy and all that jazz, Stephen is a better comedian, but when it all comes down to it, they're comics. Give 'em something funny, and they'll make fun of it. or give them The Days of Awe, and they'll make fun of THAT. Yah, I'm the schlemiel they're playing to with all the Jewish Jokes. My apology to you will come in September.

Jon Stewart will rip Obama?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 10:05.

I heard a brief segment on CNN from this one comedienne who was complaining that there was nothing to make fun of about Obama, and that it's going to be a long 4 years for her profession.  I was thinking, 'really? REALLY?  How about his stammering when he is off-script?  How about his complete lack of substance except for hope-and-changey-ness?  How about his nebulous ties to Chicago machine politics?  How about his pop culture iconic status?  How about his gigantic ears even?'  But then it struck me: she isn't really going to try to make fun of Obama.  I'd bet good money that we won't see any serious lampooning of Obama from the likes of Jon Stewart.  This is for three reasons: (1) because they agree politically with Obama, (2) because they know where their audience is, i.e., left-of-center, and (3) because they will be uber-hyper-sensitive about appearing racist, for as an ultra-liberal friend of mine tried to convince me, merely calling Obama arrogant is to show your true racist colors.

But then again I don't watch Jon Stewart; the few times I have caught his show, I found his humor to be banal and that he does nothing but perpetuate ridiculous conservative stereotypes.  So if you find that funny, IMO it says a lot about you.

you should watch colbert's show with oreilley

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:23.

that was the very definition of a smackdown and a tour de force.

FWIW, I loved the british humor with the Brit correspondent. but if you don't know britspeak, you probably didn't get the joke.

I'm sure there will be plenty to make fun of about Obama. Maybe not the things you mention, but I'm sure there will be stuff. There's got to be some humor in him showing up for Ben's Chili, but bothering to pay, for instance (and I'm not black, so I'm not going to go there.).

Ben's Chili?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 13:55.

n/t

the store that had a signup reading

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 15:46.

The only person who eats free here is Bill Cosby

he appended it to "And the Obama Family"

http://www.benschilibowl.com/history.html

What's funny is when...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 15:08.

He juxtaposes comments made by the same person that logically make no sense, or that go against each other. Or when he points out the stupidity of the supposed "War on Christmas". And yes, I've got a guilty pleasure for his horribly bad Bush impersonation.

I'd enjoy conservative humor, if I could find it somewhere. But comedy, for me, is usually about inversion, and conservatives are not usually ones who enjoy inverting the order of things. Kinda goes against conservatism, after all.

conservative humor

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 17:11.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/index.php

Flipped through a few comics...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:06.

I'll say, the Minnesota one with the state bird being the loon made me chuckle. but most were more overtly political than humorous. Reminds me too much of the dreadful Opus/Doonesbury.

'overtly political'

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:23.

but most were more overtly political than humorous.

And what do you think Jon Stewart is?

a genuinely funny guy.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:09.

did you catch his interview with Zgniev? (carter's guy. can't spell name)

I believe in ACCURACY

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 12:30.

USSR was no more an evil expansionist empire than America was.

USSR fought in afghanistan, and fought a rather popular war in Vietnam. America overthrew democratic rulers to prevent the spread of socialism.

A pox on both their houses.

Historical documentation will show that the USSR believed that they were under threat from the West. Russia has always been paranoid, and the Iron Curtain was just another manifestation of that.

This is rather like the Crusades, where the Christian West believed that there was a generalized threat of Muslim takeover.

WTF is wrong with you?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 13:56.

Now you are reduced to arguing moral equivalence between the USA and USSR?  I guess you really are a troll.  Goodbye.

when the united states engages in immoral behavior

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 14:14.

I believe in calling her out. Destroying Allende's regime in favor of Pinochet was surely an immoral thing to do.

I'm a firm believer in realpolitik, I don't expect America to be an angel. But I won't gild the lily and say that she IS an angel, when she clearly hasn't been.

Did America do more good, on the balance, than evil? surely! More than USSR? of course!

Example please?

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 13:24.

Daniel cites evolution denial as a conservative stupidity point and I have to agree with him. But then he goes on to cite other liberal stupidity points that I, as a liberal, nor any others that I know personally have ever advocated. 

I seem to remember during the GOP priimary debates Anderson Cooper asked if anyone did not believe in evolution and several hands went up. This was among a group of ten or so very serious candidates for the presidency of the most powerful nation on the planet. And I don't remember hearing any laughter from the audience. Perhaps it was composed of all stupid conservatives. I guess all the smart ones were at home watching on TV.

My challenge to Daniel or any of you is to come up with a similar debate question that if posed to the 2008 Democratic field of candidates would have gotten several hands to go up and would be an equivalent to the evolution question in terms of labeling the hand raisers as a grade F pluperfect idiot.

I don't think "Do you think we have any lessons to learn from socialist and communist governments?" would qualify, as we can learn valuable lessons from any system of governance. We can learn from studying feudalism and oligarchy, but no one is advocating their return.

Also I can't see any hands going up for "Anyone here feel guilty because they are white and some other white people have oppressed black people for many centuries?" That seems more like a neurosis or a personality flaw than a stupid idea really. Wouldn't a "stupid idea" by definition have to be something that a stupid black liberal or stupid Asian liberal might think  just as well as any other color of liberal?

So give me an equivalent example of liberal stupidity that a candidate would proudly raise his hand in support of.

Here's some:

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:26.

(1) Do you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

(2) Do you believe that the principal obstacle to the adoption of alternative, "green" energy sources is a lack of funding and political will?

(3) Do you believe that the terms "assault weapon" and "machine gun" are interchangeable?

(4) Do you believe there is such a thing as a "cop-killer bullet"?

(5) Do you believe that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is like unto -- for example -- the Grand Canyon in beauty and majesty?

(6) Do you believe that a primary cause of the GSA failures and the bursting of the housing bubble was a policy of deregulation advocated by George W. Bush and other Republicans?

(7) Do you believe that the policies of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin are to be credited for the economic boom of the mid to late 1990s?

(8) Do you believe that the Branch Davidians were dangerous cultists whose conduct forced a confrontation with the government?

(9) Do you believe that recycling is in general cost-effective and helps save energy?

Really, I could go on all day.  To be fair a few of those are examples of bipartisan stupidity which would identify a hand-raiser as a Grade F pluperfect idiot, but the point still stands.  Liberals like to fancy themselves hard-headed empiricists -- one of the three pillars of liberal politics is insufferable narcissism; see also anything ever written by E.J. Dionne -- but they're no less susceptible to magical thinking than conservatives.

 

Nice list, centerfire

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 09:24.

(1) Do you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

(2) Do you believe that the principal obstacle to the adoption of alternative, "green" energy sources is a lack of funding and political will?

On global warming and environmental issues it is the conservatives and not the liberals who have credibility problems with the general public, most especially the youth. Question one has too many qualifier adjectives for it not to be a matter of debate. Question two is too simple to parry with, "It is simply one of many factors that all must be addressed as critical to the solution."

(3) Do you believe that the terms "assault weapon" and "machine gun" are interchangeable?

(4) Do you believe there is such a thing as a "cop-killer bullet"?

These two are a bit semantically nit-picky specific for my tastes. An equivalent to the evolution question would be something broad like, "Do you believe in gun control?" Questions 3 and 4 would be like framing the evolution question as, "Does ontology in actual fact recapitulate phylogeny? Angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense that no one on either side of the issue cares much about.

(5) Do you believe that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is like unto -- for example -- the Grand Canyon in beauty and majesty?

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and therefore always a subjective argument.

(6) Do you believe that a primary cause of the GSA failures and the bursting of the housing bubble was a policy of deregulation advocated by George W. Bush and other Republicans?

(7) Do you believe that the policies of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin are to be credited for the economic boom of the mid to late 1990s?

Once again, any politician worth his salt on either side, R or D, would retreat to the "One of many important factors" framing on these two.

(8) Do you believe that the Branch Davidians were dangerous cultists whose conduct forced a confrontation with the government?

Same problem as with questions three and four. Too specific to the single case to have much to do with the issue as a whole. A question in this area would have to be about the broader subject of warrants and illegal search and seizure.

(9) Do you believe that recycling is in general cost-effective and helps save energy?

Now you're on to something. I do think we liberals are, in general, pretty muddle-headed when it comes to recycling and energy saving. Recycling probably takes as much energy, if not more, than using virgin raw materials. It's just that recycling saves a portion of our pool of virgin raw materials for later use. You don't save much energy, if any, only raw materials.

And on energy saving products you are simply shifting the burden of costs to the consumer on a voluntary basis. My flourescent spot lights I installed this week do indeed use less energy, but they cost a buttload more than their incandescent equivalents. I will probably never personally realize a savings. By the time the pennies add up on my power bill, the bulbs will be at the end of their five year life anyway. But I did use less energy for five years, by using the new bulbs. If we all did it, it would have a positive impact on the power grid as a whole. But we simply shift the monetary cost to ourselves.

Recycling and green products are positive things. But they are hardly the free lunch, magic wand, products most folks assume they are. The only no cost, no brainer, is the inflate your tires to proper pressure thing. Cost nothing, saves big time energy. And as I recall, it was the GOP that put out Obama pressure gauges to make fun of something that even a child could tell was a good idea.

why I recycle: not because it reduces energy used

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:13.

but because it pays for my trash collection. See, we run a profit on the recycling, and a nice shiny one at that.

Yay Capitalism!

deregulation

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 12:06.

(6) Do you believe that a primary cause of the GSA failures and the bursting of the housing bubble was a policy of deregulation advocated by George W. Bush and other Republicans?

(7) Do you believe that the policies of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin are to be credited for the economic boom of the mid to late 1990s?

Once again, any politician worth his salt on either side, R or D, would retreat to the "One of many important factors" framing on these two.

And yet our current D political leaders "worth their salt" act like it was "deregulation" that caused the mortgate meltdown and the only thing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did wrong was to get sucked into the evil right-wing mantra of "deregulation".

Agreed upon false battleground.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 12:41.

My own personal opinion is that both R's and D's have agreed to fight this one out on the battlefield of deregulation for two reasons. They both have an ideological dog in the fight. But far more important, it distracts from talking about credit default swaps. And neither side wants to go there.

My understanding is that bad mortgages and CDS are inextricably linked to form the problem of the meltdown. But bad mortgages are the tail, and CDS is the rest of the dog. The best way I heard it put is that the players on the field this weekend in the NFL playoffs stand to gain a great deal financially on the outcome of the game if their team wins and goes to the Superbowl. But they have put no money down to secure their big payout.  Not a big problem as a fairy godmother (US govt.) could easily cover the loses of the few players who don't win. The players are like the mortgage holders. Some will win and make the payments, but some will lose and default because the game is set up to only have some winners and some losers.

The CDS market is like every fan in the stands having a stake in the game equal to any given player, also with little or no money down to cover the inevitable loses. The fans have no business being involved. The players control their own financial fate with their performance on the field. The fans are just side betting on something that might as well be a coin toss or a dice roll. When the bubble burst and the final score is tallied no entity is big enough to cover the fans loses. The figure I heard was 67 trillion in fake CDS investments.

Greed on a massive scale. If Americans understood what really went on there would be heads on pikes on each side of Wall Street for miles. CDS is a subject no D or R wants to discuss. So they have this phony argument about bad mortgages. Sort of like when you ask McCain about the massive problem of entitlements and he changes the subject to the penny ante problem of earmarks.

you catch Stiglitz's article?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 14:08.

he makes a good case that CDS came from deregulation as well. But Stiglitz puts the blame where it belongs -- on both Democrats and Republicans for more deregulation. I put more of the blame on the Bush admin for putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse, but... I won't deny clinton bears some of the blame.

Parry, thrust.

Submitted by centerfire on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 15:28.

To avoid the dodge, let's change question #1 to: "Do you believe that Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was an accurate representation of current climate science and the probable effects of global climate change?"

Anyone who responds to question #2 with either hand-raising or an, "It's one of many factors," dodge is a Grade F pluperfect idiot.  The principal obstacle to the development of alternative, "green" energy sources is physics.  Because of fundamental physical limitations (amount of energy and power generated, reliability, concentration, efficiency of use, and cost to utilize) they cannot scale well enough to meet a significant portion of our current and future energy requirements.  These are intractable engineering problems that very bright people have been unable to solve despite having government subsidies lavished upon them for years.  I appreciate that liberals have successfully convinced a large segment of the public that sprinkled with the pixie dust of an Obama imprimateur and government spending we could replace a lot of those nasty smoke-belching coal-fired plants with wind turbines and solar farms that coexist in harmony with pristine meadows where the birds sing and the unicorns run.  This doesn't alter the fact that it's a steaming pile of horseshit, and that anybody who genuinely believes it is a weapons-grade fool.

I disagree that #3 and #4 are too nitpicky.  Certainly, they're narrower questions than "Do you believe in evolution?" but the need to "get these bullet-spraying weapons of war, and ammunition that can cut through a cop's vest like a knife through butter, off our streets" has been a liberal article of faith for at least the last 20 years.  I'm willing to bet that I could get raised hands from both the President-elect and the Attorney General-designate.  And yet affirmative answers to the questions demonstrate conclusively that the hand-raiser is not, shall we say, a member of the reality-based community.

As for #5, while it's true that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, anybody who agrees that this approaches the beauty and grandeur of an actual natural treasure such as the Grand Canyon is someone that I think most people would agree has a fairly warped sense of aesthetics.  Again: the point here is that liberals have for the last decade consistently described ANWR as some kind of icy Eden in which it would be a moral crime to sink an oil well, which is such an easily-disproven load of crap that to cling to it amounts to magical thinking.

You're probably right about the likely responses to #6 and #7, but as with #2, even that much of a response to #6 demonstrates that the responder is a first-rate fool.  There is simply no tenable, good-faith argument to be made that deregulatory policies advocated by Bush and Republicans resulted in the GSE failures and the housing bubble bursting, if for no other reason than Bush and Republicans weren't advocating deregulatory policies vis-a-vis the GSEs: the Democrats were.  For liberals to blame Bush deregulation even as one among many culprits is probably good politics, but, again, isn't reality-based.

#7, as I think more about it, just isn't a very good question.  I'll have to think more about how to rephrase it to get to the heart of the liberal mythology about Clinton's economic record.

As with #3 and #4, I disagree that #8 is too narrow a question.  Time and again when I've discussed the Waco episode with liberals they've told me, in so many words, that the Davidians brought what happened on themselves; essentially, that the Davidians deserved it (i.e., to be raided, shot, have their pets killed, have their home destroyed by IFVs, and ultimately be incinerated in a fire of indeterminate origins while the federals prevented firefighters from reaching the scene).  When I ask what they actually did to deserve it, I get a lot of harrumphing and isn't-it-obviouses, demonstrating that liberal confidence in the Davidians' culpability is faith-based.  Perhaps you can conceive of a better question that gets to the pith of the liberal mythology of the BATFE as a dispassionate, non-abusive law enforcement agency.

I'm glad you agree that #9 goes to some magical thinking.

 

thank you for rewording the first question!

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:23.

Yes, I do believe Al Gore's movie is accurate. Not because it was made by Mr. Gore, of course, nor because I have watched it personally. I believe it is accurate because a researcher friend of mine submitted many of the slides for it (and yeah, he did watch it, and will vouch for it's accuracy). This is an explicitly non-partisan person, who has worked as much for the Libertarian party as for the Green, and as much for the Republican as the Democratic party.

So, yeah, I kinda trust him.

I'm certainly willing to listen to your argument on #2, but I'd like for you to actually cite some sources, not just flipflop around spouting propaganda.

Okay, I'm as much in favor of restricting ownership of handguns, as I am of restricting ownership and use of mortars in this country. To whit: get a license, ya yutz. Blasting licenses aren't that hard to come by, either. Why should a handgun license be any harder?

Owch. ANWR looks better in the winter, no doubt about it. But the Everglades are HORRID places, and yet deserving of protection for the help they give to the national water supply.

Greenspan was in favor of deregulation of everything, for any reason he could find. A mindless Randian Idealogue, the hedge funds loved him. When you have greenspan (a nominal republican) fucking up the entire place by leaving 1% interest rates ... free money... for entirely too long... ayiyiyi. GSE (fanny and freddy) weren't the cause of the mortgage meltdown. They actually got some shred of regulation, which was why they moved out of subprime loans way before other people did.

REALITY blames deregulation, and finds both sides bearing some of the blame. Read Stiglitz's paper, 538 calls him the leading American economist, last I checked.

Contemporary economic research Credits clinton's boom to infrastructure investment. contemporary to clinton, the research said that the boom came from lowered deficit. That's right, economists changed their minds. I find looking at the actual experts a better way to remove ideology from the whole picture, don't you?

Let's not bitch about the ATF

Let's bitch about the eco-weenies who have the right to barge in without a search warrant and confiscate any illegal game that you might have. huh? -- my point is that there are worse things out there.

ROFLMAO

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:12.

This discussion was worth having just for the spit take laugh I had when I got to "weapons grade fool."

Well played sir!

I will add that one to my quiver of insults.

Waco a good example.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:54.

centerfire, I have not thought about Waco for a long time. As a liberal I would condemn the governments actions as a probable violation of search and seizure laws. So much so that it caused the death of many innocent people, even if there were known law breakers in the compound.

I hope I would have been honest and smart enough to have said that back when it happened. I know the whole scene gave me no joy, and a bunch of grief. But would I have defended "my" administration that was embatttled by a "vast right wing conspiracy" on so many false fronts? I sure hope not. But hindsight is 20/20.

If any liberals you talked to tried to defend Waco they were making the same mistake conservatives made with Bush and Katrina (and a bunch of other Bush failures). We on both ends of the political spectrum have to have the cojones to call out our own when they obviously screw up. You can say Bush tarnished the conservative brand with his idiocy. But I think the GOP would be in far better shape today if they had loudly called foul instead of praising what we could all see was gross mismanagement.

I am going to be the first one to take Obama to the woodshed if he gets out of line. Because I don't want to make the same mistakes the righties made and pull down an entire party because of the ineptitude of one man. 

On energy and climate issues it sounds like you are way more conversant with the science than I am. So I won't argue where my ignorance would soon be exposed. But I do believe that in matters of science (and religion) politicians should shut up and take the expert's word for it. If a concensus of opinion has been reached in any hard academic discipline, that probably represents 20 years of hard research and scholarly debate that happened before the issue got it's first mention in Time or Newsweek.

Bishop John S. Spong has an interesting take on such thorny political questions. He says that history shows that if a new question is being asked in a society, then the answer has already been formed. The existence of the question is proof of the answers prior existence. The purpose of the question is just to give those who might resist the already arrived at answer some time to get used to the answer by feeling that they are part of a debate. But in reality, there is no debate, us liberals are just giving you conservatives time to cach up. : )

No you won't

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 23:46.

I am going to be the first one to take Obama to the woodshed if he gets out of line.

No you won't, because it will be those evil right-wingers being the ones taking Obama to the woodshed, and the circumstances surrounding the woodshed-earning incident won't be immediately clear at the time (e.g. maybe Koresh really was abusing the kids at Waco? Do we really know for sure?) and the MSM will be more than happy to support and promote Obama's cover story for whatever it is he's accused of doing wrong, and then of course Obama and his minions will spare no effort to spin and deflect blame, and in the end you will consider the whole affair a tempest in a teapot and pat yourself on the back for doing your part to support the broad goals of the Obama agenda, even if Obama might have done something that maybe possibly might be wrong, but surely can't be as bad as those right-wingers think it is because they are only motivated by partisanship.

More than a distinct possibility I'm affraid.

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 07:20.

Time will tell. But I will make an effort to see through the spin.

science

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 23:49.

But I do believe that in matters of science (and religion) politicians should shut up and take the expert's word for it.

No they shouldn't.  That is giving scientists way more credit and power than they deserve.

Scientific concensus

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 07:50.

One of my college professors explained that the scientific community would have come up with all of Einstein's theories within a few decades. But they would have done it by slowly crunching observational data that was collected and arguing it out as a physics community over many years and many meetings of minds. That's the way it almost always happens.

The thing that made Einstein an icon is that he did all his theorizing alone, without any data to speak of. And then he waited for all the data to be collected that confirmed his theories as correct. That almost never happens. Usually by the time the public becomes aware of a contraversial theory, like man made global warming, there is twenty years of rigorous scientific debate that preceeded. 

By the time the politicians start their debate, the scientists have almost always already finished theirs, and come to a concensus conclusion. There is always a tiny possibility that a lone genius like Newton, Einstein, or Darwin will come along and turn the whole thing on it's head. But you can count the times in human history when that happened on your hands and still have fingers left over.

Usually a done deal stays done. The politicians are twenty years too late in terms of having any effect on the debate (which is already over) and in terms of their understanding of the complexity of the subject. They just embarrass themselves by displaying their ignorance and hubris.

 

I'm rushed, so I can't respond to this in detail.

Submitted by centerfire on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 16:12.

However, I want to say something quickly about "scientific consensus".

Hard sciences are not consensus-driven disciplines.  Anybody who tries to sell you policy on the basis of a "scientific consensus" is not your friend, regardless of how said policy might otherwise comport with your ideological predilictions.  What matters in hard sciences is not how many people are willing to sign their names to a piece of paper, but whether their theories are experimentally testable and repeatable, and whether they produce predictable results.

The principal problem with climate change alarmism in particular, but a whole host of other liberal policy prescriptions that have been arrived at through "scientific consensus", is that the underlying theories aren't experimentally testable and repeatable, and don't produce predictable results.  The climate models purporting to show we're on the verge of an ecological catastrophe have been, over and over again, so disastrously wrong that in a less politicized field the modellers would be absolute laughingstocks by now.  There's no convincing explanation for why satellite-based climate measurements show less warming than either ground-based measurements or what various climate models predict we should be seeing, nor has there been any satisfactory explanation for why, in every other historical era of warming, CO2 variations have trailed climate change while in this one they're (supposedly) driving it.  Nor is there an explanation as to why anthropogenic CO2 emissions in particular are driving warming, as opposed to far more significant CO2 emissions from natural processes such as volcanic activity.  And so on and so on.  Meanwhile, there's a small but respectable alternate theory that solar activity is what's driving the climate changes we're able to accurately measure, and though it's far too early to hang our collective hat on it, the Warmenists refuse to trouble themselves to investigate or respond to it, instead pronouncing that, "The time for debate is over," as they enact a laundry list of policies they wanted to enact anyway -- say, increasing CAFE standards, as if fuel economy improvements are achieved without any tradeoffs, when in fact they cost money, freedom, and lives.

I spent fifteen years in a hard-science field before I changed careers and went into law.  The hallmarks of a respectable, conscientious scientist are humility, skepticism, and a healthy respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Warmenists show precious little of any of these traits.  I would dearly love to have more empiricism driving public policy, but we are not going to get it from Democrats any more than we have from Republicans.

 

Your rushed is my contemplative.

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 17:57.

You said far more of relevance in a rush than I could if I worked at it all day. I knew discussing the sciences would eventually find me completely out of my depth.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Especially when your ignorance is starting to show really bad. I'll just listen from here on out when the subject is warming. Should have known a guy with fire in his handle would be an expert. 

Can you explain why the overwhelming number of scientists agree?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 18:25.

If you spent all that time in the sciences then you know first hand that what is most important to most scientists is being right and coming up with new things. You get social standing within your peer group by being the first to demonstrate something; you get humiliation for publishing something that is later demonstrated to be wrong (and the person who proved you wrong gets to move one step up the ladder).

So then, why have so many lined up in the "warmenist" camp, when doing so offers them no rewards (it is unoriginal, but yet carries the risk of Y2K humiliation).

I worked with research scientists for many years - I never saw much interest in politics, but I did see a great deal of interest in being right.

Where are all the masses of credible climate change skeptics who are not on Exxon's payroll? Or, at least, were on Exxon's payroll before the money went away.

Seems that even Exxon doesn't believe Exxon any more.

 

Why did...

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 05:13.

so many scientists of Gallileo's day line up in the geocentrism camp, to the point that he and other Copernican heliocentrists were actually persecuted by secular and religious authorities when they tried to present their findings?

The fact of the matter is that warmenism, like geocentrism was back in the 15th century, is politically correct.  Sure, we don't have a Catholic inquisition that's going to force you to recant and place you under house arrest, but if you're not on board you're nevertheless regarded as some kind of troglodytic denialist crank who wants to kill the planet.  Does that sound like fun?  Why rock the boat and subject yourself to that nonsense?  Yeah, you're a hero like Gallileo if you're someday vindicated, but you'll probably be dead when the day finally comes, and in the meantime you have to endure the personal and professional opprobrium and/or accusations that you're just an ethically compromised tool of Sinister Corporations.

Though they'll bristle with indignation at the suggestion, scientists are as susceptible to the pressures of political correctness as anybody else.

 

Little thing called the scientific revolution

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 10:30.

Little thing called the scientific revolution between then and now which has rather changed all the rules of the game.

Scientists pounce on the opportunity to be iconoclastic becasue that is how you get ahead in the field - you come up with something new. Papers that are just iterations on a theme are fine for grad students who need a bit of practice - but if you want to be a researcher in your own right, you've got to go your own way, or your won't get any funding. But you have to be right, and unlike other fields, there are ways to test if you are right or not - so just sitting around dreaming up crack-pot ideas isn't enough. You have to have the data to back it up.

If anyone had the data to disprove the prevailing wisdom in ANY scientific field they would do so, becasue that is their path to advancement as well as getting the immense statisfaction of being shown to be smarter than the rest.

To return to your comment - we actually do have a group playing the role of the Inquisition in this case: The Bush Administration. The New Scientist reports how they put pressure on scientists to fall in line with their official skpeticism or risk loosing funding.

And I have a bridge to sell you.

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 16:15.

The "scientific revolution" completely changed human nature? Really?

If you believe that, you're an even bigger moron than I first thought.  Sorry to break this to you, but iconoclasm isn't how you get ahead in scientific fields, these days, any more than it was in Galileo's day: you get ahead by giving handjobs to the purveyors of conventional wisdom, who turn around and reward you with fame and funding for being not right, but merely right-minded.  Witness how Bjorn Lomborg was absolutely savaged for doing nothing more than calling for a relatively dispassionate cost-benefit analysis vis-a-vis environmental policy.  Witness how frauds like James Hansen are treated time and again as subject matter authorities despite having been caught red-handed cooking their data, while skeptics like Richard Lindzen are at best the subject of "Gorillas in the Mist"-style coverage rather than real investigation of whether they're correct.

From your link, the people claiming the Bushies pressured scientists to fall in line or risk losing funding is the Union of Concerned Scientists, a lefty pressure group.  These same people have absolutely nothing to say about the provable politicization of criminological research into gun control under the auspices of the CDC.  They have as much credibiltiy on scientific issues as groups like PFAW do on constitutional ones: the only reason anybody would listen to them is out of pure partisan hackery.

 

I am talking about the way the profession works

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 11:04.

You are talking about a few "celebrity cases", I am talking about the way the profession works for the thousands of everyday working scientists. If all of your work is "me, too", you never advance.

And, yes, the scientific revolution certainly changed the way people think. If you feel very unwell, do you pay the priest to say some masses? Or do you go to the doctor??

Lomborg's probably right on that.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 11:12.

If only we had some way to test the more risky, yet potentially less costly, other methods of remaining a Class M planet....

Cite me some sources on that CDC stuff. NOW. ;-)

no scientist who is not funded by the oil companies

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 10:58.

believes that global warming is a myth.

There's enough data to show that it is human generated, and that if we continue, it will continue to go up.

Unstable equilibria have this disturbing tendency to do the unexpected. But you knew that.

There's a difference between "wrong" and "well, we didn't predict that for another twenty years!"

If the models are failing to account for large portions of the climate, that's almost to be expected. There is SO MUCh to model, there.

Oh, and you might watn to account for cows, which are driving some portion of teh anthropogenic warming through methane.