I'm not a conservative

nor am I a conservative apologist, but I'm fed up with centrist criticism of conservatism, because the critics never state what they are for, only that they are against the conservative base. This two part critique of conservatism -- here -- goes on and on about the closed-minded, ideological stance of conservatism as opposed to the Ancient Greek-like period of the Reagan days, and yet provides as proof a few comments at his blog which castigated him for using the words of a liberal to prove his point, and the fact that RedState banned the Culture11 link.

Not anywhere in the two posts does Rick Moran state any idea from the center to show superiority to base conservative ideas except that people like him believe in the idea of being open to all ideas. But, this doesn't prove that the conservative base is opposed to new ideas, only that they believe their ideas to be better. Perhaps Moran should have shown better ideas in order to persuade them of a better way and the need to be open to this way. I'm just saying.

On Domination and Liberty

Listening to the Sunday political shows this morning it dawned on me what's causing much of the frustration experienced by reasonable people regardless of their political affiliation. When any free-thinking, reasonable person tries to analyze the reality of the situation on both the left and right of the political divide, there is a prevalent mindset among a large portion of the political class which purposefully defies classification and critique.

When liberals were liberals and conservatives were conservatives it was easier to debate issues with clear and understndable differences, but now there's a large part of the political class which uses Orwellian tactics to avoid being tied to ideology or classification. When it's obvious that this group of people are promoting socialist policies, it's reasonable for a free-thinker who still values honesty to call such policies socialistic -- however the new group of would-be dominators, sneer at and ridicule the socialist label. There is an Orwellian movement going on to confuse language and hide intentions behind obfusating, irrational words games and verbal/mental gymnastics.

This goes beyond the sensitivity-based PC efforts into the realm of subterfuge and manipulation. This is why real debate is almost impossible -- the political class bent on subterfuge and manipulation for the sake of power, enabled by much of the media, controls definitions and how language is used to describe current events and spin dangerous policies. The more that reasonable people attempt to fight back and ascertain the reality of what's happening, the more effort this political class of manipulators puts into framing the opposition as ignorant know-nothings who are radically "far-right".

We all know that if a Republican had made the comments that Harry Reid made about Obama's light-skin and lack of negro-dialect, unless he wants to have a negro dialect, the Republican would be run out of town, tar and featheres -- if a Tea Party leader had made this statement, they would be pilloried -- but this mornng on the shows, everyone, even George Will, made light of the comments by showing how Harry Reid is a good Democrat who merely misspoke -- but it's not the comments that are the problem, it's the different reactons to the comments. This is how these issues become convoluted and irrationality wins over reason. 

The political class talks about the need for stimulus, and when it's pointed out that the private sector will not act when they don't know which change, tax or regulation is coming next, the Orwellian gang ignores the point to make a further point about the private sector needing stimulus to begin feeling confident. They don't address the claim, they go right past the fundamental problem and hammer the idea of stimulus, so that the conversation is confusing and no issues are really discussed. It's just a steady drumbeat of propaganda.

These tactics are used by enough politicians and political pundits and media jounalists to make a viable claim they are intentional, and they are meant to manipulate public opinion. They create enough doubt and uncertainty to continue their agenda, and, in the case of healthcare reform, put the consequences out in the future far enough to institutionalize the control. The Orwellian gang believes that if the impression of recovery can be made then everyone will cool down and Obama's approval rates will start climbing. In reality, you can't assign a political classification to this Orwellian gang, because they don't have enough integrty to be classified as a liberal, a progressive or even a socialist. They are power-mongers, manipulators and controllers who will use any means to reach their ends. They are the heirs of tyranny. Those who support them may have diverse views individually, but, collectively, they are mainly interested in gaining favor or protection through the use of power and coercion. Real liberals should see this as clearly as anyone.

This division is becoming clearer. The advertised battle between progressives and conservatives, between Republicans and Democrats, is now meaningless -- so we get down to the real division between those who are striving to dominate and those who are protecting liberty. Everything else is a sideshow and distraction. The Orwellian gang can do a lot of damage, but it's my opinion and hope that reasonable people will not roll over and allow this domination. It's never been more important to resist deceit and manipulation, to use reason and to think for ourselves. Some people reading this will make the claim that I am smearing the opposition with the term "Orwellian" and therefore practicing what I'm condemning, but I maintain that in this present environment, it's clear who is right and who is wrong -- I refuse to be silenced by an argument of moral equivalency between what this Orwellian group is doing and what reasonable people are beginning to see through and resist. Anyone who can't see the difference has already been indoctrinated -- history will be the final judge, but I've made my choice. I say No -- what they are doing is not right.

Update on Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 11:40AM by M. Farmer

David Frum's post helps to make my case about double-standards, deceit and manipulation:

http://www.frumforum.com/why-were-dems-silent-about-edwards-scandal

Friedersdorf, Sanchez and a cast of doubt

http://trueslant.com/juliansanchez/2009/12/16/the-politics-of-ressentiment/

I first saw this blog post at Will Wilkinson's blog. Mr. Wilkinson thought it was "glorious". Yes, simply delicious, Buffy.

You'll have to follow the bouncing links on this one, and unless you are diligent you'll miss all the premises which are left dangling and unproven. Julian Sanchez is commenting on a post by Conor Friedersdorf, in which Conor uses Matt Continetti's blog post about Sarah Palin's Op-ed in the Washington Post as proof that the right is practicing the "politics of schadenfreude", and that the right is obsessed "with its own supposed victimization" -- got it? Stay focused, this is important stuff. 

 

Sanchez suggests that Friedersdorf should have called it the "politics of ressentiment", because when it comes to hoity-toity words, the French have that market cornered. Plus, "ressentiment" serves better to explain the right's psychological disorder. Of course, both Friedersdorf and Sanchez create a premise, or several premises, they never prove, but let's not spoil a perfect chance to attack Sarah Palin and the rube conservative movement who are so envious of the intellectual elite, and frustrated by their perceived superiority, due to feelings of inferiority, which causes hostility toward the cause of their frustration, only a hoity-toity French word can describe the disorder. Well, I would say so. There's certainly no Amurican word I know to describe such a complex disorder.

 

Let's hold off on presenting a different explanation for opposition to the left so that we can follow Friedersdorf and Sanchez to their conclusions. We'll go with the established premise. What I'm not sure of is which faction of conservatives are Friedersdorf and Sanchez addressing? They say the "right", then they mention "conservatives", then they address Palin, so I assume they mean the conservative base which supports Palin. Having read Friedersdorf before, I'm assuming it's the faction of conservatives who listen to talk-radio and attend and support Tea Parties, the ones cleverly called "tea-baggers" by witty moderates and left-statists. I giggle every time they say "tea-bagger", although I feel a little guilty -- oh well, it's just a little innocent fun -- wink-wink.

 

So, Conor's post was about Matt Continetti's post which defended Sarah Palin's Op-ed in the Washington Post against what Continetti thought was unfair attacks. Conor provides links to the posts which criticized Palin's take on global warming, and Conor stipulated that the criticisms were fair and civil and that Continetti was over-reacting -- and then from this Conor extrapolates more evidence of what he thinks "feeds the politics of schadenfreude, and an unhealthy trend on the right toward casting ourselves as victims." Conor then submits a link to Continetti's post as evidence that he overstates his case. What Conor doesn't provide is evidence of the "right" casting themselves as victims. Continetti obviously thinks Sarah Palin has received unfair scrutiny which isn't applied to other political figures -- I know, I know, it's no wonder Conor is upset by such a wild claim, but let's go on -- I promise this is about more than this silly crap -- bear with me.

 

To be fair to Conor he believes Continetti overstates and exaggerates the persecution of Ms. Palin, so we can safely assume that Conor realizes Palin is being persecuted -- it's just that this persecution shouldn't be exaggerated or overstated. I think that's what Conor is saying, and it's something that must be said -- kudos to Conor for having the courage to take this stand. Exaggeraton and overstatement of the persecution of Sarah Palin is a problem we must all face and deal with if this nation is ever going to go forward.

 

And Conor makes a damn good case, providing links to the criticisms and clearly showing that the criticism is fair and civil. Take that Continetti! May you learn a lesson -- overstatement and exaggeration are unnecessary. There is enough obvious persecution of Sarah Palin without exaggerating. My only concern is that this passionate offensive against exaggeration and overstatement does not prove that the right as a whole is suffering from a victimization complex. It's just as civil to defend yourself from attacks as it is to criticize. When the right makes its case against the cartoon versions presented by the media, this is a legitimate defense, otherwise the right would at the mercy of its enemies to create their identity. I personally don't see any evidence that the right places itself in the position of victims -- I see them fighting against statism, for the most part, but that's me. If Conor can produce evidence, other than an overzealous post by someone most people haven't read, then I'm open to being convinced. Plus, Continetti is writing a book called Palinoia, so I imagine he's looking for material. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. There is still Sanchez.

 

I apologize for the length of this post, but there is something important going on here, and Julian Sanchez enlightens us -- I promise I will get to the "something important".

 

Going back to "ressentiment", the hoity-toity French word suggested by Sanchez to describe the psychological state of the conservatives/right:

 

Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, an assignation of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

 

This definition of ressentiment comes from Wikipedia. If Sanchez doesn't know, then he should, that making claims such as this requires proof, of which he provides none, and that it's lazy to put the burden on those who read lazy accusations and feel obligated to address the intellectual laziness. So, if this is too long, blame Sanchez. What Sanchez claims is plain BS. BS is slang and doesn't come from the French, I don't think.

 

It's interesting, though, that Sanchez brings up psychology, because his post is full of freudian slips and projection. Sanchez states that the conservative base suffers from an inferiority complex, and by way of reaction formation create an enemy on the left to which they can feel superior in order to hide their insecurities, or something like this. If Sanchez had explicated this claim, we wouldn't have to wonder about his intentions, but we certainly can't take the claim at face value without proof. And while we're making wild claims, one could make the claim that the reason Sanchez doesn't explicate his claim is that "somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering" at him. That someone might be on the right, opposing statism, not because he/she feels inferior, but because statism will destroy the country. This snickering Harvard graduate could even believe Sarah Palin is good for the country -- I'll bet there are a few out there, as unbelievable as it seems.

 

It seems to me that Friedersdorf and Sanchez feel a need to create an enemy on the right among the conservative base, whatever that might be. It's still unclear there is a monolithic conservative base outside the media's imagination. Perhaps Friedersdorf and Sanchez have doubts about their own noetic prowess, therefore in need of appearing superior to the hoi polloi tea-baggers (hee-hee) with spittle on their fat redneck cheeks. I'm just saying. Since we're playing psychologists on blogs, it's a fair possibility. But, let's be real fair, if Sanchez and Friedersdorf are talking about a small faction on the right who would control us all with their brand of morality and militarism, and who are statists as dangerous as the statists in power now, then, Hell, yeah, brothers, statism of any kind sucks -- but, I get the feeling, that F&S are speaking to something much larger that they've marginalized and framed as unsophisticated, insecure, hardcore social conservatives . Call me suspicious, but I don't think they'd go to all this trouble to criticize a small faction that is quickly fading into obscurity.

 

There is a group of these writers who all seem to have a similar point of view -- Friedersdorf, Sanchez, Frum, Sullivan, Suderman and Brooks, to name a few -- and it seems they are intent on controlling the conservative narrative going forward. Actually, it doesn't seem like conservatism as it does a centrism which is statist-lite. Like Sanchez says, it does no good to claim that they staaaaarted it, but it does help to know what "it" is. 

 

I propose that "it" is a battle between moderates, who accept compromise and some statism as necessary to good governance, and anti-statists who believe we need to return to a limited government. There are idiots, misunderstanding and confused thinking on both sides, but the underlying struggle will boil down to these competing forces in relation to opposition to the left. These competing forces could be said to be struggling for control of the Republican Party, although the anti-statists and limited government force are slowly moving away from partisanship. Where the moderates are blind right now is in identifying their problem as the conservative base, which has been historically associated with social conservatives, the religious right -- that's not the battle. The battle is a battle of ideas -- to compromise with statism and work within the system to lessen the effects of statism or to fight statism head on, as a force in the private sector, in order to change government and limit its power. Ideas are powerful and it's the ideas which will move people.

 

The mistake of thinking you can marginalize ideas by framing the adherents as unsophisticated and insecure leads to arrogance, hubris and an eventual downfall and obscurity. The ideas are causing creative tension and the ideas are an inspiration to learning. People are paying attention to what's going on, and it's a matter of time before leaders emerge who can articulate the ideas and turn them to action. When this happens, the ones playing political games, underestimating their opposition and failing to recognize the ideas involved, will be left behind with no influence and no credibility. 

 

Those who think the opposition to statism is filled with rubes intimidated by the intellectual power of moderates and "progressives", i.e., statists, are well on their way to irrelevance. There is a movement afoot, filled with intellectuals, which is neither intimidated by moderates or those on the left, nor does it likely recognize such intellectual power on the left. I mean, just look at what's going on with the left! Hardly an intimidating, intellectual show of power -- more like a Keystone Cops adventure.

 

But the point is that serious intellectuals address the ideas -- they don't play sophomoric popularity games, obsessing on personalities. Intellectuals search for the underlying themes in relation to the grand movements of history -- they don't deconstruct based on petty stereotypes and psycho-babble. The theory of ressentiment is a clever ploy to marginalize those you despise, but it does little to gain a deeper understanding of issues critical to our future.

Misunderstanding the American people

It seems like political pundits and bloggers get their understanding of the American people from one another and that hardly any of them have had much experience living among and getting to know different classes and types of people. Perhaps they are right of college and mix only with like-minded people -- I don't know.

The pundits and bloggers are good at categorization from a theoretical perspective, but don't show much practical understanding of people as they live, feel and act in everyday life. Luckily, I have lived long enough and traveled enough, and was fortunate enough to grow up in poverty, then transition out later, that I have met and become familiar with many people from every class level, religion, color and political stripe. So, much of the political analyses bother me because they don't seem to fit the reality I've lived within.

When people start categorizing in terms such Frumians (oh, jeez!), neoconservatives, paleos, etc, they are talking about something foreign to most people. These categories are interesting to a handful of political insiders, but they do nothing to shed light on a diverse public opposition to government.

Most people are learning more about what's happening in government, and if you ask them, they will tell their take, but polls are useless. Most people answering a poll will repeat what they've heard on tv, or what they think they should say. I think we can safely say that most people simply don't want a lot of government interference. People have been confused about this issue in the past because they haven't thought very deeply about it and they haven't applied principles to their political understanding. Most have been okay with programs that help the unfortunate or provide assistance such as unemployment benefits.

The American public saw these government programs as common sense things a government does to help the unfortunate. But, when Bush started expanding government, and when we got the financial crisis news, then the bailouts started, people were caught off guard. It wasn't until Obama continued these large government programs, or started proposing them, that people started paying more attention and then reacted. Many pundits have charged the opposition with hypocrisy because they didn't oppose Bush, but I believe it's as simple as being caught by surprise and not knowing what to think until Bush was out of office. The opposition is not now defending Bush and simply picking on Obama -- they are angry at government in general.

To frame the opposition in insider terms is misleading and confusing. To place this movement as a conservative movement is only partially correct, as I'm sure much of the opposition is conservative in the general meaning of that word. Hell, most the country is fairly conservative in many ways. But a lot of these people have liberal leanings, some have much more libertarian leanings -- in other words, they are a diverse lot with many similarities, people fed up with government control, and they are beginning to realize that apathy from the public has caused this. Now, though, they are paying attention.

All the political wrangling going on misses the whole point -- most of America wants a more limted government. It ain't rocket science.

Moderates need to get over their Obama embarrassment -- but how?

A big part of the Republican split, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that Moderates don't know how to save face after voting for Obama. As the Obama administration begins to slip in popularity, and as Obama's agenda is being revealed for what it is -- progressive and bad for the country -- Moderates are put in an embarrassing position. To admit they are wrong and the conservative base is right is too difficult to even contemplate, so the Moderates have find a way to maintain the validity of their criticisms against the conservative while also finding a way out from under the Obama wet blanket.

The Moderates have to justify their previous support for Obama, while at the same time distancing themselves from the coming political fall-out. This is not an easy task. The Moderates can't just admit they were wrong about Obama and the conservative base was right, because that would be tantamount to admitting defeat in the war for control of the Republican Party -- plus, the Moderates still think the conservative base is wrong and that they will destroy any chance to win in 2012.

The Moderates, in order to have it both ways, will have to convince independents that Obama turned out to be something other than they expected, but the orginal impulse to vote for Obama was legitimate, because moderation is still the way to go to build that Big Tent and win an election. I have a feeling that the Democrats are going to push their agenda to the point of implosion, and the Moderates will have painted themselves in another corner by continuing to call for moderation and compromise. When independents look at the state of the Democrat Party and realize something totally opposite needs to take its place, moderate statism and compromise are going to be a tough sell, especially when the conservatives have been resisting the progressive agenda from the beginning. The Republican primaries in 2012 are going to be a good show.