« Here's why Gen. David McKiernan was sacked as Afghanistan commander | Richardxx's Blog | Why did the Republicans and Democrats essentailly swap ideologies during the twentieth century? »
Conservatives fear and hate change viscerally; irrational reactions are to be expected.
Why are conservatives acting so crazily these days? They are focused on preventing social change and they will do what it takes to achieve that outcome.
Conservatives dislike change because they are socialized to hate and avoid social change. This is the pre-modern way of thinking, and it still applies to most individuals and many complete cultures and subcultures. Conservatives belong to a subculture that values stability and tradition above rationality and change. Tradition and social stability are the most important things in their lives. Yet as is very clear, our society is undergoing rapid technological and economic change that affects everyone. Conservatives just want to stop that change any way possible, and they are looking for someone besides themselves to blame.
Their core values are rooted in tradition and religion. Cultural values like this are what each of us learn as we grow up, and it tells us what is right and wrong. They accept that tradition and social stability are right and good. They know deep down that change and people who advocate change are bad. Facts and rational thought processes are valued much less important than tradition, so when someone describes a social problem and proposes social changes they automatically recoil in fear and reject it. They 'know' in their hearts that such change is dangerous and wrong.
It is this mindset that makes conservatives focus on what they want to happen and to ignore the process of getting to that outcome. The outcome is what they value, and the rational process of getting to an outcome is not valued. In fact if the rational process prevents achieving the desired out, then the process will be rejected. In our liberal society the Constitution declares that using torture is an unacceptable way to get others to do what we demand, but if the conservatives want recalcitrant enemies to comply with their demands, then the demand for compliance means that the limitations on getting there will be rejected. There is no real use arguing rationally that torture is ineffective. The conservatives will use any means to get what they want.
Here are the steps that conservatives take that lead to irrational or crazy behavior.
(1) They know what they want society to do, and they look around for arguments that will get people to do it. The basis for their certainty of what is right is traditional authority. It is taught by family, religion and by the subculture they live and work in.
(2) Sometimes what they want to do has no rational argument that supports it. The outcome they want is what's important, though, so they still need to find a way to get it.
(3) Without facts and reason to base an action on, they find a lie to convince others. Remember, they know from traditional authority that what they want is best. In our modern media, only the lie is transmitted. There is no fact-checking unless it is so egregious as to be worth the effort.
(4) When fact-checking does occur and they are caught lying, they resort to every trick pulled by an addict or alcoholic to avoid or deflect blame.
Conservative thought processes and addictive thought are similar. Both are outcome oriented. The only thing that matters is that the result or outcome is satisfying, and if the rational steps to get to the outcome prevent the desired outcome from occurring, the steps to get to the outcome must be changed. That means convincing others to do things that achieve what the conservative or addict wants. Lies are as good as logic as long as the result is the desired result.
NobelCommentDecider presented a list of excuses that conservatives use when caught lying. Notice how similar it is to the excuses an addict or alcoholic uses when caught using.
(1) Democrats do it too
(2) whatever it is it isn't their fault, or George W.'s
(3) you just don't like free speech
(4) it's a slippery slope to taking their guns
(5) or Lalo35adm-'you say people are stupid just because they disagree'
Extreme behavior and lies to achieve a desired outcome is not universal among conservatives, although they all know in their hearts that change is inherently wrong. Some conservatives are, however, more prone to extreme behavior. The more extreme conservatives will say and do almost anything to defend against change. The less extreme conservatives will defend those who are speaking and acting for them. The result is that they all support the extremists.
Some commenters who have heard the crazy statements from Republicans who are fighting against health care reform have asked "Are they living in a different universe?" They are asking the right question. The fact is they are living in a pre-modern culture and they'll say anything to keep it.
[This analysis is based on Max Weber's description of traditional and modern culture. It is well-known in Sociology and in Organization Theory.]
Conservatives dislike change because they are socialized to hate and avoid social change. This is the pre-modern way of thinking, and it still applies to most individuals and many complete cultures and subcultures. Conservatives belong to a subculture that values stability and tradition above rationality and change. Tradition and social stability are the most important things in their lives. Yet as is very clear, our society is undergoing rapid technological and economic change that affects everyone. Conservatives just want to stop that change any way possible, and they are looking for someone besides themselves to blame.
Their core values are rooted in tradition and religion. Cultural values like this are what each of us learn as we grow up, and it tells us what is right and wrong. They accept that tradition and social stability are right and good. They know deep down that change and people who advocate change are bad. Facts and rational thought processes are valued much less important than tradition, so when someone describes a social problem and proposes social changes they automatically recoil in fear and reject it. They 'know' in their hearts that such change is dangerous and wrong.
It is this mindset that makes conservatives focus on what they want to happen and to ignore the process of getting to that outcome. The outcome is what they value, and the rational process of getting to an outcome is not valued. In fact if the rational process prevents achieving the desired out, then the process will be rejected. In our liberal society the Constitution declares that using torture is an unacceptable way to get others to do what we demand, but if the conservatives want recalcitrant enemies to comply with their demands, then the demand for compliance means that the limitations on getting there will be rejected. There is no real use arguing rationally that torture is ineffective. The conservatives will use any means to get what they want.
Here are the steps that conservatives take that lead to irrational or crazy behavior.
(1) They know what they want society to do, and they look around for arguments that will get people to do it. The basis for their certainty of what is right is traditional authority. It is taught by family, religion and by the subculture they live and work in.
(2) Sometimes what they want to do has no rational argument that supports it. The outcome they want is what's important, though, so they still need to find a way to get it.
(3) Without facts and reason to base an action on, they find a lie to convince others. Remember, they know from traditional authority that what they want is best. In our modern media, only the lie is transmitted. There is no fact-checking unless it is so egregious as to be worth the effort.
(4) When fact-checking does occur and they are caught lying, they resort to every trick pulled by an addict or alcoholic to avoid or deflect blame.
Conservative thought processes and addictive thought are similar. Both are outcome oriented. The only thing that matters is that the result or outcome is satisfying, and if the rational steps to get to the outcome prevent the desired outcome from occurring, the steps to get to the outcome must be changed. That means convincing others to do things that achieve what the conservative or addict wants. Lies are as good as logic as long as the result is the desired result.
NobelCommentDecider presented a list of excuses that conservatives use when caught lying. Notice how similar it is to the excuses an addict or alcoholic uses when caught using.
(1) Democrats do it too
(2) whatever it is it isn't their fault, or George W.'s
(3) you just don't like free speech
(4) it's a slippery slope to taking their guns
(5) or Lalo35adm-'you say people are stupid just because they disagree'
Extreme behavior and lies to achieve a desired outcome is not universal among conservatives, although they all know in their hearts that change is inherently wrong. Some conservatives are, however, more prone to extreme behavior. The more extreme conservatives will say and do almost anything to defend against change. The less extreme conservatives will defend those who are speaking and acting for them. The result is that they all support the extremists.
Some commenters who have heard the crazy statements from Republicans who are fighting against health care reform have asked "Are they living in a different universe?" They are asking the right question. The fact is they are living in a pre-modern culture and they'll say anything to keep it.
[This analysis is based on Max Weber's description of traditional and modern culture. It is well-known in Sociology and in Organization Theory.]
Advertisement
Hi Richard, I think one should distinguish between movement conservatives and ideological conservatives. Our own MCBill, Lalo, and Jason, and the many who think like them, they fall into the latter category. And imo none in this class really fits the above bill of goods. If they've been moved to the margins of the Republican party, it's because the movement conservatives have hijacked the party. Just like the Dem party has been hijacked by centrists. I used to consider myself a small-c conservative, then the political discourse shifted radically rightward and now I'm a purity-trolling ideological leftist it appears. All very strange.
But there is an aspect to the general conservative mind-set that is more tribal, in-group oriented, loyalty-based, authoritarian, which leads to 'any means necessary' approaches when dealing with relations vis-a-vis out-groups, whether they be foreign or domestic. I don't think it has much to do with an aversion to change. At least insofar as movement conservatives are concerned. After all, they want a pretty radical make-over of society - stronger militarization, more police-state measures, greater religious encroachment on government, roll-back of social programs to pre-Roosevelt times. Being reactionary is not to be change-averse. It's a very clear conception of the change they want to implement.
August 29, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey give me a line like this and all of a sudden good feelings arrive:
Just like the Dem party has been hijacked by centrists.
Its perfect, its the truth. I just like to see the truth once in awhile.
August 29, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree with you. I think the current right wing is an alliance of a number of groups with related but different motives all trying to mobilize the right-wing base to vote for them. It's the mindset of that base that is the target of the money and the media manipulation.
I started on this idea when I read Digby talking about America's two tribes. It seemed pretty accurate to me as a social liberal raised in East Texas. The two tribes I am familiar with don't even know they are speaking different languages, and I am trying to understand why.
Do Inhofe, Coburn, Ennis, DeMint, Sessions, Sanford and Vitter really have a clue just how crazy they sound? I doubt it. It's the thought process behind that unawareness that I am trying to understand. Ultimately it seems to me that some of those politicians share the thought process of their base, and some are just catering to it as I feel certain Jon Cornyn is.
No doubt some marketing guru has a picture of one or a few typical conservative voters on his wall. I want to know the thought process that typical conservative voter is using to reject universal health care. Because it's the same thought process that supports the war on drugs, the war on terror, the lock-em-up and throw away the key attitudes, and the low taxes and no service crap that Norquist pushes.
Are the movement conservatives the descendants of the anti-communists and the John Birchers? How do they think differently from the evangelicals and the Dominionists who are manipulated by Pat Robertson and "the Family?" I do think, though that those groups all share traditionalist thinking at the core. They are all anti-modernist in that they value stability and continuity and social hierarchy above rational goal-oriented thinking.
Traditional thought is associated with rural areas, but America has become an urban nation. A lot of people from agricultural backgrounds moved to the cities after WW II to get jobs. But they still thought in traditional rural ways. So when the car became viable, they moved to the suburbs to get away from city government and taxes.
Guess what? We are in the next generation, and they grew up in the cities. The living in cities requires rational thinking and dependence on a bunch of people you will never meet and who do things that you can't even imagine. They don't go to your church and you don't know what their values and morals are. That is very different from the rural way of life where most people attend the same or similar churches and you know pretty much everyone around you.
The difference between traditional social life and modern social life according to Weber is that in traditional life you trust those whose values and morals you share. In modern urban life you are instead interdependent on those around you. You have to depend on them to do their job reliably even though you may not even know what it is and you certainly don't know how they do it. Or why.
I see the problems we are having now as being part of a major culture clash between the two American cultures. And the conservatives are the losers. They can't win in the long run. But they can fight change at every step.
And they are doing exactly that. They see every change as a threat to their way of life and to the values they hold dear.
I don't see them as motivated to implement a clear conception of change. I see them as instead attempting to use any and every argument to derail the current effort at change, and one of their tactics is to offer something different. The indication of that is the fact that they have never acknowledged the failures of the current lack-of-system of health care until real change was threatened. Only when real change is threatened and seems almost inevitable do they propose a conservative version.
It's not serious. If anyone took them up on it the conservatives in Congress would add a poison pill to the bill that forced the majority to vote against it. They are good at that. They are obstructionists. It's what they do. It's because they fear any change.
August 29, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are the movement conservatives the descendants of the anti-communists and the John Birchers? How do they think differently from the evangelicals and the Dominionists who are manipulated by Pat Robertson and "the Family?" I do think, though that those groups all share traditionalist thinking at the core.
I think you are on the right track. Jost & Co. maintain that there are two core aspects to conservative thought - resistance to change and justification or toleration of inequality. But I'm not sure if Jost makes a distinction between conservatives and movement conservatives, and like Obey, I think there is a difference.
However, what ties movement conservatives together is more than a resistance to change. According to John Dean, it is the the perception of enemies that provides the glue. It used to be communists and for awhile terrorists, but in the presence or absence of all else it is liberals, or any point of view different from their own, that binds movement conservatives.
Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation calls the ties between social, libertarian and traditional conservatives "the politics of fusionism"**. He also concedes the need for a common enemy:
So given that resistance to change is common amongst conservatives of all stripes, the common enemy theme may be at least part of the answer to what binds them together.
August 29, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
**The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism.
August 29, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your enlightening comment.
Regarding the statement
I agree there is a difference in the two groups. But is there a difference in their innate resistance to change or to their obedience to authority and tradition rather than logic and rationality?
I also agree that their alliances often seem to depend on an agreed upon common enemy. But that enemy keeps changing. That suggests to me that the specific common enemy is a tactic to create the alliance, but that there is a deeper reason for the alliance itself beyond the alleged common enemy. Perhaps the leaders of the two groups see the need for alliance, and then agree on a common enemy to sell to their joint followers. So my question is what is that deeper commonality that binds the leaders?
I accept from Bob Aletmeyer, author of "The authoritarians" that the characteristics and motivations of the leaders differ sharply from those of the followers.
August 29, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressive movement in this country came out of the republican party at a time when democrats were the ones who would stifle the advancement of We The People toward realizing a more perfect union. Our history is much more fluid and malleable than this blog seems to account for.
I see the ongoing destruction of a perversion of what the republican party has historically stood for, even as the modern democratic party became less progressive as a result. The unfortunate truth in this situation is the "silent majority" doesn't vote in the primaries, so neither party represents really represents the majority of their constituents.
No political group in America is as homogeneous as the republican party is being accused of these days, no matter how loud and crazy the GOP fringe is or how the "leadership" currently reflects that crazy. Until we see greater turnout for primary elections, I don't think either party will truly deliver on the opportunities for progress that exist in this country.
August 30, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I read your excellent question this morning and have spent the day answering it. My answer is in my new blog post Why did the Republicans and Democrats essentailly swap ideologies during the twentieth century?.
And I realized after posting it that I had misspelled essentially, but I do not know how to edit an already posted blog.
August 30, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a piece of cake.
Go back to the "Blog Now" section and under the "Manage" menu, click on entries and then click on the name of your blog that you want to edit. Make the changes you need to and hit publish again.
You can do it over and over and over again as you notice errors. At least, that is what my OCD requires.
August 31, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is...well I live for this. hahahahaa
August 30, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this really took off while I was off-line. Congrats Richard! You've even got the traditional hazing from our resident raging root! He's great when you get to know him, really.
That said. I need to bone up on my Weber, but I'm still not too happy with the 'traditional values vs rationality' framing. It mixes up the oppositions between superstition vs science, prejudice vs morality, and oppositions between simply conflicting conceptions or prioritizations of moral values. Just throwing out the foundations of right-wing views on morality and the fabric of society does a disservice. If you look hard at authors like Chris Lasch, the arguments can look somewhat implausible, badly supported, but it's not just 'fear of change', nor is it 'irrational primitivism', nor bellicose hatred of the other. Of course these things get mixed up with the traditional values view, but the latter has a pretty refined philosophical basis which one has to get to grips with in analyzing conservatism and its working-class roots more closely tied to its present deformed manifestation in movement conservatism. (as opposed to the different capitalist tradition).
I say that, but I can't say I've gotten my own head around it quite yet, and I haven't had your temerity to post on it either. So I thank you for this post, a lot of stimulating thoughts and great comments. Kudos. And looking forward to more of this kind of stuff!
August 30, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Root followed me over to the comment I left on your blog, too. I guess I have a stalker. What the hell. Higher comment count is success all by itself.
He's a sad case. Spews pure emotion with no significant content.
I left out the context of the Weber terms. He was writing about bureaucracy and how it was the modern form of organization rather than the older traditional organizations that simply grew up. Bureaucratic organizations are intentionally designed to accomplish a goal, and are built around specialized job functions, hiring for expertise rather then loyalty, written communications, Rules and Regulations to standardize job functions, and bureaucracies use hierarchy to control subordinates. In that context the traditional vs modern (rational) should make more sense.
That seemed to far afield for a short blog, though.
An interesting thing to me was learning that as organizations grow they don't need bureaucracy much at first, but they can't get past about 200 people in a single location and still function. At that point no one employee can know or know of all the others. Multiple locations need bureaucracy even more.
Much of the complaint about government by small businesses seems to me to revolve around the way government demands bureaucratic records for small businesses. But my experience is that those records they are forced to keep are the only effective management tools a lot of small businesses have.
They don't know if they are making or losing money without the tax records, so a lot of small businesses only know if they have a profit or loss once a year.
August 30, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this. Then you add to it with long comments.
This is really good. Organizational models, Max Weber...
THEY will do anything to keep things the way they are, to keep their power, to get more power. Say and do anything.
I will be back.
August 29, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. The first post is the hardest part. I react better than I post. I'm not sure why yet.
Thanks to both of you.
Max Weber makes a lot of good sense, and his major work was published in German in 1922, two years after he died. The current English translation was published in 1978 and is still the best explanation of bureaucracy that exists. It's also still one of the best sociology books out there, or so I have been told. I need to get my own copy instead of just reading about it.
A bureaucracy is an organization rationally designed to accomplish a goal (or related goals) rather than one that grew up based on tradition. And bureaucracy does it. Not perfectly, but it's the best humans have today. No other form of organization is as flexible. Which can also be admitted is a statement that no form of organization is very flexible. But bureaucracies more reliable than pure arbitrary leadership models which is what the conservatives demand to replace them with.
Weber bases his analysis of bureaucracy on the cultural difference between traditional thought and rational thought. As I work through the implications of that it really seems to explain the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals.
Here's a short synopsis:
The biggest difference between traditional culture and modern culture is urbanism and industrialism. Working in agriculture is traditional. Working in a bureaucracy is modern.
The biggest social dimension of this is urbanism, and it happened in Germany during the end of the 19th century. The cultural strains it caused were major reasons for the Great War. It has only happened here since WW II. Our farmers were already feeding the German industrial workers before WW I. We were still inside the frontier mentality, so Americans did not adapt as quickly to industrialism. [There goes American Exceptionalism. Sorry. The conservatives HATE that!]
It's that social adaptation to industrialism and to urbanism that I think is driving current American political conflict between conservatives and liberals. That explains the vast gap between rural areas and urban areas in the last election, for example. Rural counties went Republican. Urban ones went Democrat. It also explains why the battle for national health care - a modernist urban requirement - has been reduced to a battle in the US Senate, a governing body designed to protect the rights of a rural upper class elite.
But back to history
Frighteningly, the failure of the German upper classes to recognize the change in war technology led them to support traditionalist upper classes of the Austrian Empire. The German upper class leaders (especially the Kaiser) opted to protect the Austrians from the Russians when the Austrians went after the Serbians.* The Kaiser's reaction was also a reaction to German industrialism. That industrialism gave Germany the power to fight the older powers in Europe.
Such German military power had not existed before. They developed it in part in reaction to Napoleon's conquests, but it was made possible by German industrialism which was greater than any other in the world at that time.
The German ruling classes were still rural traditionalists when the situation was purely modern. They thought that traditional European war could solve international problems. Expensive, but still an upper class game. They did not understand the difference between total war and upper class war. It was a traditional mindset thing. It was that German declaration of war against the Russians that drew in the French because the French were aware that the German war plans required attacking the French to who were committed to protect the Russians. That German declaration of war was the key to setting off the Great War because the British upper classes couldn't let the industrially dominate Germans control all of Europe. This was all an upper class set of decisions that dragged in the rest of their nations.
Both Bush and Cheney have the traditional European mindset. If it didn't happen in Europe or America it didn't matter. Only European history is guidance to how international relations work. Unfortunately for Bush and Cheney - and us - the European Empires are gone now.
Conservatives are traditionalists, not modern rational thinkers. What should we expect? The invasion of Iraq was, I think, a perfect example of the traditional European upper class trying to solve an international problem by limited war. Bush is a member in good standing of that class, and Cheney has been adopted.
* They had warning. Clausewitz explained how Napoleon created total war. The US Civil War was the first industrial total war. The Russo Japanese war of 1905 was clearly an industrial total war. The German, British, Austrian, Russian and French upper classes who decided to go to war didn't get it. Bush/Cheney still didn't get it.
August 29, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you happen to have a link for this horseshit distortion of Weber?
As if villagers aren't interdependent on those around them!
Richardxx's dim-witted impulse to bash the other side of the political spectrum has no connection whatsoever with Max Weber, and this post is nothing but pitiful "we're better than them" pandering to the readership of TPMCafe.
August 29, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a link, but I got it from Macionis, John J. (2007) Society: The Basics 9 ed. p. 129.
There's more, but I quote
What I wrote is a reference to the fact that in modern organizations and society we specialize the jobs and few of us understand the nature or requirements of the jobs people who provide critical inputs to us. This is true in urban areas especially. Do you have a clue what the local firemen do for you? Yet when you buy a home and get insurance, one of the first questions is going to be "Where is the nearest fire station" and they are going to check on whether that is volunteer or real firemen. Do you have a clue what either the fire professional or the home insurance professionals have to do to perform their jobs? I doubt it.
In a rural area or small town you will know the person providing the service personally, and probably you will know pretty much what they are doing for you and how they are doing it. You may attend the same church and so you will trust them. You understand their values and morals even if you don't know them or their family.
Frankly I don't give a rat's ass if my local fireman is a Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist. I just want them to know what to do if there is a fire problem at my home or place of work - and those locations require different professionals. Did they plan in advance to deal with the specific fire disasters likely at my home or work place? Do they even bring the right equipment? I am dependent on their professionalism, not on their religion or morals. Their supervising organization guarantees their professionalism.
And this is just one of many different individuals who I don't know but upon whom I depend to live daily in my city. That is my understanding of interdependence. How many people use computers but can neither assemble nor trouble shoot them?. The customer depends on the computer user all getting it right and has no clue what they are doing. The computer user depends on the hardware and software people getting it right, but has no clue what they do. That is interdependence squared.
Whereas with a little squaring away there a not many jobs on a farm that I could not do personally. I know that they do.
Somehow the urban ways of life, especially work, seem very different from rural ways of life to me. Inherently different. That requires a different way of thinking. And I think that is what Weber was describing.
So how am I wrong? I am open to enlightenment.
By the way, thanks for posting. I post to learn. Correct me where I am wrong. Please.
August 29, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx replies with a quote from his Sociology 101 textbook which is entirely irrelevant to his own garbled contrast between urban and rural societies, and embeds it in a comment which includes...
And then there's his "sincere" desire to learn from someone who doesn't even have a clue what a fireman does...
Okay!
I'm not here to educate you, Richarxx, you stupid, hypocritical, freshman drop-out from a crap college 30 years ago.
I just passed through to warn naive but nevertheless honest and sincere goody-goodies like Dick Day that your post is garbage from a condescending jerk who really doesn't "have a clue" what Weber meant by "rationality," much less any of the rest of it, and before Dick or some other reader who really is trying to "learn" takes Richardxx's silly distortion of Weber at face value, he or she should at least check out a middle-brow source like Wikipedia, which is already 10 steps up from Richardxx's no-brow gobbledegook.
And that's all the time I'll ever waste with you, Richardxx, you pompous, semi-literate clown.
August 29, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee. Do you have a point to make, or just some weak invective to spew?
I do get the impression that you disagree with what I have posted. Why or how is totally missing from your post. If you return, try to write some substance, will you?
August 29, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not let this get you down Richard. But I do not think you are stupid enough to do so.
I have been going through an awful lot the last ten years. Somebody had me so down five or six months ago, I pulled the blog.
Just keep on keepin on.
This shows, people are reading you. ha
Ob ey likes reading you, I like reading you.
We do not have 20 pages here to go on about Max Weber.
Oh and please dont. hahahahahahaha
August 30, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that turkey doesn't bother me. I was just wondering what he wants for demonstrating my thesis that conservatives hate viscerally. I would have offered five bucks, but he delivered it for free.
Irrationally, too. What more could I have asked for?
August 30, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Nothing frightens the trolls like an intelligent voice that might get more attention.
August 30, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is great. I mean you caught me at the right time, at the right place. I can not thank you enough.
Lets begin.
First, I cannot be a sincere goody goody. Not with seven felonies under my belt. Now, you really do own those seven liquor stores right?
Second, I can assure you as can my three ex wives, I have never been a goody goody.
Now that I have that off my chest, let the carnage begin.
THERE IS NO HOPE, NO TRUTH, NO JUSTICE NO AIM FOR JUSTICE FROM THE RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY.
The banker from those thirty's films, what's his name again, oh yeah McConnel has no aim to do right for anyone. You know this. Because you can read and write. And Sir Boner sure the hell has no Christian Charity in his fucking heart. And you also know this.
And you know that the repubs do not give one goddamn about reforming the health care industry. And that is what it is. A health care industry. But let us look at some recent quotes:
Earlier this week, Idaho Republican gubernatorial hopeful, Rex Rammell, said he'd buy a license to hunt Obama. Meanwhile, Rep. Lynn Jenkins, (R-Kans.) expressed her wish that the Republican Party would find a "great white hope" to take on the president in the next election."
What would Max Weber have to say about that?
"Senate Republicans may have found a way to keep public health care meetings at home from getting out of control: keep the public out.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will host a "Health Care Reform Forum" at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri.
"No, it's not open to the public," Jessica Salazar, who does media relations for Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics, told HuffPost. The meeting, she said, will be attended by 75 invited guests. "
McCaskill vented on Twitter Thursday night: "More townhalls on Monday. West Plains and Springfield. Open to public. Sens Bond and McConnell having one in KC Mon but invitation only." A local blog also complained about the closed affair"
THERE IS NO 'DISCUSSION' FROM THE RIGHT. You know this.
Shall we discuss beck? That's okay hes on tomorrows blog. You can read it.
Fathead dobbsw wishes to discuss issues at a town meeting with 47 nazi broadcasters. Are we going to get a good discussion on immigration issues at that forum.
WHO IN THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING.
Come on Rutobeggy or whatever the fuck you call yourself.
Get real.
Hit me on an issue here.
RIGHT THE FUCK HERE.
Where you think the left has not been forthright.
August 30, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rooty has turned blue because he long ago decided to hold his breath and cowardly write on line in a voice he would soon learn to change if he were to use it face to face with people because he would soon find his face red and puffy if he did.
It's a shame because he has a lot of good information and reasoning to share. I think he must be a very little man and you know what they say, "Big man, big prick. Little man, all prick."
August 30, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post and comments. Like others, I think the "conservative" label is a bit broad and that it embraces a lot of different folks.
However, I your post actually spurs a different line of thought for me. Namely that the problem is not conservatives and change, but that liberals talk about change.
"Conservatives," have willingly embraced change. They embraced the change from the core value of the individual in relationship to the group, to the individual (particularly themselves) above all else. They embraced (religiously) the "Christian" value of charity being transformed into "compassionate conservatism" (meaning you are SOL if you need help). They changed (religiously) from a "Christian" value of the means are critical to a godly and ethical life, to the ends justify whatever means (lying, theft, murder, defaming another). (For example, in the Christianity I grew up with, George W, Bush would not have been seen as as "good" Christian) They accepted the change from certain things being necessary for the commons - and therefore deserving of paying taxes for - to resisting all taxes. They changed from a value of fair competition to embracing corporate hegemony.
Oh there are tons of changes to tradition and core "American" values that the conservatives have embraced. However, NONE OF THEM WERE FRAMED AS CHANGES. That was the brilliance of the "conservative" leaders - to frame the changes as if they were not changes... to talk about them as if they had always been that way.
If my observation has merit, then the stealth move to real change would be to just quit talking about change. Frame what needs to change in terms of core values, and treat the changes as if things have always been that way.
August 29, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Rowan. The wolf in sheep's clothing change-as-status-quo also crossed my mind. I've seen phrases like the "Looking Glass Left" here but I know which side the Red Queen is on (or is it the White Queen?). The new Republicans step in and out of that mirror as it suits them. Anything to promote their side. But while they are down now, the system and structure that enables them is still in place and anyone who thinks this is some new Age of Aquarius is fooling themselves. Halfway through a blink, we could find ourselves entrapped in the same cage that was the Bush regime (if, indeed, we're completely out of it), even worse.
August 30, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a lot of folks (myself included) reread 1984 shortly after Bush went into office. There were - and are - striking similarities between 1984 and the period we are in. I don't know about you, but I am not seeing much in the way of change I can believe in. Further, the spin is still there - such as the drop in the unemployment rate while more people joined the ranks of the unemployed. How about "clean coal" anyone?
I frequently feel that we are in a fun house (that is not so fun). Mirrors and deception all around and tracing the trail of reality is a shared project.
August 30, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frame what needs to change in terms of core values, and treat the changes as if things have always been that way.
Now, this was brilliant!
August 30, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I think Obey’s right on here, Richard. The loud movement conservatives are not principled in the least. I think they are polar opposites of liberals in this respect, which may explain why they propagandize so well. That’s not to say the left doesn’t have its share of irrational true believers, but they are generally more coherent. I'm sure there is a large silent majority of conservatives that do not agree with their foaming brethren but won’t raise their voices against them. But this modern-day latently bigoted Republican is a beast spawned under Reagan and Roger Ailes, grown to gianthood and unchained under Bush/Cheney/Rove. It is not so much grounded in traditional values than winning at any costs. It is tribal but united only by war chants.
How many ideas or programs were cheered under Bush, accusing opposition of being traitors or worse, but when Obama takes them up under the very same parameters, they’re decried as nefarious? Look at Obama’s relatively Bush-lite like FP and national security measures. He is being demonized as a dictator for continuing Bush's unitary executive policies. He is accused spying on Americans, deploying troops against Americans (to man the concentration camps I guess) and wanting to move Terrists to tents in your back yard! Eight years of Bush and Cheney and Obama is creating a police state?! All while he accommodates the other side. He might as well become a Republican, but WWRD (What Would Rush Do?)
The Rush Republicans, a minority of conservatives, have bellowed and blustered and bullied control of the movement. But they broke it, so they own it now. Libertarianism used to be a large part of conservativism but civil liberties are just words on paper now when conservatives are at the helm.
Fox News was created for conservatives but Frankenstein has taken over the castle. Conservative positions are now adjusted to fit Fox News now. The Fox babies were birthed by an unholy alliance between Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. How are they be able to create a cottage industry out of crucifying Clinton for straying when every third Republican has at least molested a family pet but will always get a pass? They have absolutely no real principles or values. Note, too, how often they cover themselves in the cloak of victimhood while calling the left whiners.
There is no real use arguing rationally that torture is ineffective. The conservatives will use any means to get what they want.
You see, it isn’t even about disagreeing over what’s right or even what works anymore. Conservatives are happy to see a government failure after Katrina because it bolsters their talking points about government failure. Try this (I have) when arguing with a Limbaugh Republican about torture: First, they did have to ditch the Geneva Conventions and ignore the War Crinmes Act right away, so let’s not pretend we’re not talking about torture (if it weren’t torture we would not be arguing about the torture). But ask them how, if the military has admitted that perhaps 80% of its detainees who suffered “enhanced interrogation” may have been innocent, torture can be justified even if it was producing information (i.e.,how good would that info be)?
If they are still tightly gripping onto your legs as you try to leave and insisting it was all done to save Gotham City, ask them how someone like Mohammed Jawad, by all accounts a child picked up after a forced confession, signed by his thumbprint and written in Farsi, a language he doesn’t speak, can be tortured with sleep deprivation for 14 days (and this just weeks after his latest suicide attempt) but never interrogated. That’s right; he was abused regularly for seven years but was never questioned after the abuse. Not one question. Nothing.
You might think, at this point, that your conservative friend would admit that EIT under those circumstances was perhaps excessive, but she or he will almost certainly avow their allegiance to all things military and claim there must have been some reason, or they wouldn’t be doing it! You can’t argue with crazy.
August 29, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things about torture is that a few people simply get off doing it. Most of the rest don't want to, so the managers give the job to the guy who wants it.
Of course, the torture then becomes an end in itself, and questions are irrelevant. That's over and above the fact that torture does not provide reliable Intelligence. You can't trust what you get. And it contaminates whatever you might get.
All in all, torture seems a very ineffective Intelligence tool. Apparently, though, it has long been known to provide plenty of propaganda-ready confessions.
August 29, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I was getting at the justification of torture. Thousands and thousands, mostly innocent victims, have been tortured or abused. An unknown number have disappeared into the desert night. At least a hundred have died under this mistreatment, and we've heard of atrocious abuses like the rape of children. But the worst, as always, is redacted from public view. The torture tapes, the abuse photos, the audio of children screaming is illegally destroyed or locked from public view because it would silence defenders of this regime instantly. Our elected leaders acted with impunity in forming this entire WOT fascist program because they knew they would have impunity. And it is now being codified as SOP, ready for for some future or current use by the new, change administration. Jawad and hundreds of others were tortured as part of a structured government policy, but without purpose. There is no reason to debate either the effectiveness or uselessness of torture if it has no intelligence objective. This What "policy" has no objective except, perhaps, a sadistic retaliation against innocent people who only look like those who attacked us? That's politics not policy, and the dirtiest of politics. It is pure cruelty and domination, a bullying show of force. Not America. Indefensible.
August 30, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is Richard's blog. I am pissed because I cannot get anyone to fight with me. Roto rooter or whatever she/he/it calls itself wont take me on.
hahahahahaha
You know the funny thing is Don, I just attempted to contact TheraP and tell her this. THEY would come and attack her in the midst of terrible familial pains--shall I call it---and it got to her.
Used to get to me. Not anymore. But they stay away from me now for some reason. So rotorooter goes after Richard, and I think, here is some fun.....
Nothing.
Oh well. Oh the other thing is, when somebody begins to attack me in a blog, five people show up and attack the attacker....
hahhahaha
I do not know why this is funny to me.
Here is a nice song Don.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM7LR46zrQU&feature=PlayList&p=4FD45026D1DF3D9B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27
See if I said something like all conservatives hate black people....you might show up and say...well that is stupid because of Condi or Thomas...or whatever.
If you commented and said, all rich people rape three year old babies...I certainly would demur.
There just seems to be no consensus as to truth anymore or even how to arrive at truth.
THE END
August 30, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would fight you, DD. But I read your response above, and honestly, dude, I get the feeling you have a razor-sharp butterfly knife in your back pocket and know how to use it :)
I don't like to talk about people (esp.when they can say, "I' m standing right here!"). But Rutabaga is an independent thinker, bright and well-read. I think he tries to elicit engaging intelligent debates and gets frustrated when he thinks someone's being intellectually lazy or posing, which Richard is definitely not doing here (not that I'd know the life and works of max Weber). Anyway, he has admitted his short fuse on occasion.
Richard is just trying to get the hang of organizing a blog. I thought that Richard handled it well, standing up for himself while admitting his fallibility and trying to engage Rooty. No engagement, so move on. But, I think, next they meet, a little more mutual respect will prevail.
I try to recall that Tao Te Ching you remind us of(though I haven't read it in almost 40 years). I'm more like water and seek the path of least resistance (not that I don't like a good fight, just one I can enjoy; one that I can learn from). Besides, I'm probably the biggest poser, so can hardly call out anyone else. And most everyone here is beyond my intellectual pay grade, but hey, I'm reverse slumming, okay...
PS Thanks for the tune (I remember a story he told about driving his tour bus filled with cumulus clouds of pungent smoke, unaware of what city they were even in. He was pulled over for going six mph on the freeway.
August 30, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
geeeeeeeeeeeez, you make my night. Reading my ramblings in the middle of the night. See, like I attempted to say in comments to my blog....will anyone UNDERSTAND what i am attempting to say?
You got it. The Tao, was fun to discover again. My friend TheraP took a turn towards it. She was the den Mother for this place. And criticism coupled with personal problems...took her away from us mostly.
She kept baptising me as the next leader.
If you would have demurred from this comment I would have thought, oh thats okay.
cumulous clouds of pungent smoke....
That just tells me you know exactly what I am trying to say. hahahahahahahahahah
Richard appears to be doing just fine. hhahahahaha
Because Richard, like you and me, have already been beaten down so many times, it becomes a regular part of life.
I will tell you this Don, it has been a trip knowing you. All we have is today. An you appear to be on the correct tack as far as the wind and the sea are taking you.
Thank you.
August 30, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. The trip is all mine... or yours... oh, whatever, you know what I mean.
Cheers to TheraP. Hope she comes back soon. I imagine you're resistant to the baptism thing, but you can only use the 'I'm afraid of water; can't swim' excuse so many times. You've been anointed.
Thanks for keeping it surreal! You make this place fun.
August 30, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I'm beginning to know who is who and what the pecking order is also. Thanks to all of you.
Root's really intelligent? Couldn't prove it by me from what I have seen. But I guess he is part of the environment.
August 30, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I can sure understand your feelings, Richard, but believe it or not he has posted some great conversations (certainly not here). I didn't get between you guys because you seemed to be doing fine on your own, thank you.
dickday is the man here, but is also too modest to ever admit such (he's good and prolific). And there are cliques, but I don't play that. I've noticed many posts lately where TPMers are congratulating and lauding each other for this or that; listing all of the good people here.
I've been posting here since it started but don't get mentioned. Believe me, that doesn't bother me, but I mention it to point out that if there is a pecking order, I'm probably standing behind you, brother. I bet Bwakfat decides the pecking order being our resident chicken :)
August 30, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink