Which Side Has the Worse Case of [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome?:
My post below on [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome raised the question of which side had a worse case of the disease: The right or the left?
My sense is that on the blogosphere as a whole, as well as in the overall political discourse, it's actually pretty evenly matched. Think of it as Newton's law of political derangement: For every overreaction, there is an equal and opposite overreaction (somewhere). On this blog's comment threads, however, I think the right clearly has a worse case: There are a handful of conservative VC commenters who reliably make the most absurd, over-the-top, derangement-syndrome comments possible.
Being right-of-center myself, I cringe when reading these comments: No doubt many who are not committed conservatives see them as confirmation that many conservatives are truly deranged. At the same time, I tend to think the reason the right wins the [IN]DS award here at the VC is that we're a right-leaning leaning blog. While good posts will attract readers from across the spectrum, my sense is that the Deranged tend to hang out at blogs that are sympathetic to their views. I think that explains why although we occasionally have liberal members of the Deranged pay a visit and post a few comments, they usually don't hang out in the comment forest for very long.
My sense is that on the blogosphere as a whole, as well as in the overall political discourse, it's actually pretty evenly matched. Think of it as Newton's law of political derangement: For every overreaction, there is an equal and opposite overreaction (somewhere). On this blog's comment threads, however, I think the right clearly has a worse case: There are a handful of conservative VC commenters who reliably make the most absurd, over-the-top, derangement-syndrome comments possible.
Being right-of-center myself, I cringe when reading these comments: No doubt many who are not committed conservatives see them as confirmation that many conservatives are truly deranged. At the same time, I tend to think the reason the right wins the [IN]DS award here at the VC is that we're a right-leaning leaning blog. While good posts will attract readers from across the spectrum, my sense is that the Deranged tend to hang out at blogs that are sympathetic to their views. I think that explains why although we occasionally have liberal members of the Deranged pay a visit and post a few comments, they usually don't hang out in the comment forest for very long.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Going Easy on "Deranged" Charges that Seem like Mere Exaggerations of a Deeper Truth:
- Political "Derangement" and Political Ignorance:
- Which Side Has the Worse Case of [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome?:
- [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome:...
- International Variation in Political Ignorance about the Perpetrators of the 9/11 Attacks:
- Do Voters Have a Moral Duty to Be Informed About Politics?
- Richard Shenkman on Stupidity and Political Ignorance:
So we have that to look forward to. Which is nice.
Orin
I always hate this “false balance” approach. It hate to tell you something, but sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong.
Yes, Obama is a radical.
He is radically pro-abortion to the point of fighting against a law outlawing infanticide. Even Hillary Clinton wouldn’t go that far.
He wants us to have $4 a gallon gas (he only complained that it rose to that price faster than he would like).
He wants us to retreat from Iraq even if there is a genocide in our wake.
He wants to bankrupt the entire medical insurance industry (and my only question is whether he understands his plans will lead to that—or if he is merely too stupid to understand how insurance works).
He is associated with election fraud thugs from Acorn.
He and his supporters have intimidated and threatened those who criticize him, including suggesting that criminal consequences would follow.
He has advocated a return to the “fairness doctrine” (insert joking reference to Orwell) and the end of secret ballot elections in unionization.
His rogue’s gallery of friends includes convicted felons, racists and terrorists.
And finally and most disturbingly is the way he has come clean about virtually none of this. Which leaves us all wondering how much more there is, and how much more we would find out if he was only subjected to half the scrutiny the republicans have been.
Does this mean Obama is dangerous? No, but it is a lot more rational to fear an Obama presidency than a McCain one.
Can you say anything factually true that is even half that bad about McCain? Or Palin for that matter?
So yeah, there is a lot to raise your eyebrows about, with Obama. And even then the anger, the fear, etc. is not half as much as the democrats have toward McCain, and even more so toward Palin.
Sorry, Orin, reality is not balanced. Newton’s laws do not apply: there is no guarantee of an equal and opposite reaction. There is no guarantee that for every nutty democrat, there is a nutty republican.
Or let’s get empirical. Who is more likely to believe in UFOs and ghosts? Democrats. (Source.) Who is more likely to think Kennedy was killed by Oswold, acting alone? Republicans. (Source.) Who is more likely to be a Truther? Democracts. (Source.)
Yeah, clearly there is an even distribution of rationality between the parties.
The other side always looks worse, though. If your position is a little bit on the left, the fringe-tail on the right side seems that much more absurd and far away, whereas the left-side tail isn't all that far out from where you yourself are. And vice versa, obviously.
It is perfectly possible to be a dedicated McCain supporter or a dedicated Obama supporter and be a perfectly rational and good human being. That's a pretty obvious statement, but most of the interwebs seems to forget it.
I do think you are correct that blogs tend to collect somewhat like minded thinkers in comments. There are places where I will read a bloggers post, but I refuse to read comments.
I don't really think the commentariat is that bad here, but I won't touch comments at Hot Air or the left leaning blogs whose bloggers I enjoy but the comments are full of the deranged.
i think the right will ratchet it up a few more notches in the next few weeks too. the closer we get to the point of no return on obama, the nastier it will get. the reverse will happen when the next republican approaches power.
its like the business cycle, only with insults!
I'm curious: Do you believe that Republicans are generally more honest, forthright, genuine, and patriotic as compared to Democrats?
I think you're wrong on virtually every point, and you fail to mention the numerous opposing points that might be made, but I haven't even heard of the one about infanticide. What law against infanticide has Obama taken a position against?
I suppose reasonable people can disagree as to the first three.
I take it that most posters in this thread (and the previous one) would respond: "Well, that isn't derangement since Barack HUSSEIN Obama ___is___ a Muslim terrorist."
Names please? A.W. and Observer have already demonstrated in this post their inclusion in such a class.
I'm trying to recover from Ejo Derangement Syndrome myself, so I won't take this bait -- oh wait, damn ....
Beyond that, Orin, you know I love you -- as a poster -- but this is just asking for trouble. Which party is less principled and honest? /Ducks/
In the last 8 years, I've heard the most bizarre set of conspiracy theories from my left-wing friends--Bush planned 9/11, the Iraq War was a cash-grab by Halliburton, the elections were all stolen, you name it.
The only thing that matches those theories for absurdity? The right-wing theories that say Obama's a mooselimb terrorist bent on overthrowing all law and order and imposing communism.
So I'd agree with Hoosier, except that as of a couple weeks ago the right is sicker again. But it's worth noting that the right has caught up by getting more deranged, not because the left is less deranged. We're all more deranged than we were 8 years ago.
Thing is, with the exception of the 2000 election, none of those is exactly mainstream-left, whereas the really bizarre stuff vs. Obama pops up in mainstream-right blogs.
I mean, McCarthy at NRO was trying to figure out whether Obama is more Stalinist, or Maoist. What a maroon.
here is a separate question - is NRO really mainstream now that Buckley is gone?
I think a related point is that Derangers on either side tend to ignore voices in the middle, perhaps for the reason that Orin has offered: an innate desire to minimize uncertainty.
Instead, the invective and certainty of the Derangers, whether on the right or the left, attracts undue attention of the Derangers on the other side. This attraction reinforces right Deranger views that left Derangers are Really Stupid And Evil, or vice versa.
The result is a feedback loop. When the only voices on the other side that you pay attention to are Deranged, it validates your own perfect confidence in your own beliefs.
An example from the previous thread: Federal Dog's comment that Palin has been accused of wearing a pregnancy suit. I think that only Left Derangers would make such accusations. But when responding to the accusations, Right Derangers tend to only mention that the "Left" is accusing Palin of wearing a pregnancy suit that therefore this is evidence that the "Left" is Deranged.
I could easily imagine a parallel example involving accusations that Obama is a Moslem.
I'm not sure if I've ever encountered a perfectly rational human being in my life. If such a person did exist, I suspect he wouldn't bother to vote in national elections.
But hey, at least we've closed the wingnut gap.
SIGH.
--PtM
Don't forget that Obama wants to install truth monitors in our television sets, voted to lower the American life expectancy, intends to force the national league to go to the designated hitter or repeal the baseball antitrust exception, and now wants outlaw kosher hot dogs.
Commentor
It's not clear to me that comments sections should be the place to measure derangement. Too much opportunity for false flags. I'd guess that there is even derangment in comments, but somewhat more left derangement in authored blogs and traditional media. YMMV. Derangment in comments dwarfs the others, but no individual comment makes as much of an impression as a post at a popular blog, or something in the MSM (in which I'd include Rush and Fox for purposes of this discussion).
Good question, but I am *trying* to think of a "mainstream-right" blog.
Outside the Beltway is the only one I find sane enough to read daily, but its comment threads have some really scary [IN]DS'ers of the rightist persuasion. The kind of people who would vote for General Franco if they could, and may write him in anyway.
Any other suggestions?
To follow up on Curt's point -- what are the other "deranged" rumors about the right that have been making it into relatively mainstream (I use this word loosely) blogs? Other than the Trig rumors, I can't remember any, but I know there have been some.
And in a pseudo-defense of the Trig rumor, I'll admit even I momentarily paused a bit when I first saw the case for it. The initial pictures showed a *very* pregnant looking Bristol and a not-pregnant looking Governor Palin, so while the story sounded ridiculous, something wasn't quite adding up. Of course, believing the rumor became pretty indefensible as soon as it was announced the reason Bristol looked so weirdly pregnant was because in fact she was.
Pointing to the many failures of the last eight years is exactly the same as accusing someone of being a terrorist.
But more importantly, blaming the choices that people make on derangement syndrome is itself a symptom of what little moral fiber is left:
It's all just happening to me. It's not my fault. It must be someone else's fault, you know, that Other. Not me.
But of course, a centrist is always right and never at fault.
The real problem is that the center has been destroyed and moved to a place that is not the golden mean.
And we have squandered our educational resources on training master rhetoricians who will argue any position.
Sophists all!
The difference lies in how accepted the deranged beliefs are in their respective parties. in seems from polls that the right wins this one. more people believe that iraq was involved in 9/11 or that obama is a muslim/terrorist/socialist than bush was responsible for 9/11. and it appears that most in the mainstream left either denounce or ignore 9/11 truther while the mainstream right appears to actively peddle the iraq and obama lies, among others. (of course i could be wrong if the number of deranged people on the right is greater than it is on the left...but that wouldn't change the inevitable conclusion.)
A Republican voter told McCain at a campaign rally that she couldn't trust Obama because he was an "Arab." A surprisingly high percentage Republican voters believe Obama is a Muslim and that is the subject of an extensive email campaign and commentary by conservatives. The emails flying around suggesting that Obama was the "Anti-Christ" got so bad that Tim LaHaye of "Left Behind" fame issued a statement debunking them. That's deranged.
Nothing comparable is being said about McCain.
As for Palin, the only stories that are equally bereft of facts are the "Trig is her daughter's kid story" that was pushed principally by Andrew Sullivan. And that story died a quick death. The rape kit story is fact based and not at all debunked despite what some here think. The "Palin had an affair" story is being pushed by the National Enquirer (not the left, just ask Edwards) with specific reference to people who haven't yet, to my knowledge, sued.
Nope, this is not a close call. When it comes to truly "deranged" attacks, the Right wins that contest this year.
I concluded then that people feel large and brave when they can see their enemies as larger and more evil than they actually are. It feels heroic, a worthy legatee to protesters against tyranny who went before. Speaking Truth to Power is now largely "demonising your enemies safely in the company of your friends," but it feels heroic. This is perhaps why Boomers are the most susceptible to it. Maybe they saw too many performances of Les Mis or something.
It is over-the-top but not deranged to call Obama a socialist; it is an exaggeration based on his more-socialist stances. I don't know of anyone calling Obama a terrorist, and associating him with terrorists is hyperbole (as Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists but haven't bombed much lately, whatever their rhetoric), but not untrue. That is quite different than calling Bush a fascist in the many creative ways the Left has produced over the last seven years. As to Obama being a secret Muslim, I have only one person who sends me emails to that effect, and I've got lots of right-wing friends. I seldom see it on the right-wing blogs I frequent. That accusation is out there, but is more common as a treasure held up by progressives, as it was on this thread.
I will repeat what I just mentioned on another thread. I have worked at NH's state psychiatric hospital for 30 years. In addition to the threats and assassination attempts you all read in the news, we get extras - people threatening public figures, especially during the primaries. Among my well-educated, gentle liberal friends, it was funny when people talked about assassinating Reagan, then serious when it was Clinton, now funny again when it's Bush. I have never heard a conservative speak in humor of assassinating Clinton or Obama. I can list a dozen liberals by name who have thought assassinating Bush was sorta funny. When people think there is only their kind about, they reveal who they really are. I used to be a liberal, and still look like a boomer health-food store clerk, so I fly under the radar.
Granting that I live in low-violence New England, and that the right-leaning sites I visit may be a non-representative sample, I still have no qualms about making a categorical statement: The derangement is not equal, and it is not even close.
The only evidence of Obama Derangement Syndrome are the claims that he is a terrorist. He does have ties to Communists (Ayers, the New Party) and supports Communist thug tactics (ACORN, Employee Free Choice Act), and wants to make sure there can never be any restrictions on abortion ever (Freedom of Choice Act, vehemently opposed Born Alive Infant Protection Act). He IS an extremely radical liberal candidate.
Most of the real Obama Derangement comes from the PUMAs, even though a lot of their claims about caucus fraud, etc., don't seem incredulous.
Being right-of-center myself, I cringe when reading these comments: No doubt many who are not committed conservatives see them as confirmation that many conservatives are truly deranged.
And why not? The most popular spokesmen for conservatism today - the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys - are these commenters amplified millions of times.
While some might be appalled at these folks' apathy, it is a very comforting antidote to the thought that both candidates' supporters are becoming too deranged.
I'd be more interested in Obama releasing his scholastic and health records.
McCain has done that, and he's been hammered on his class standing at the USNA.
Why won't Obama release his records? I mean, he only wants to be President of the United States.
I read DailyKos and no one is posting diaries claiming Palin's a man or should be gangraped. If they did, they would be troll-rated off the site.
The claims in your post are just false. He does not "vehemently" oppose the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act," he does not "want to make sure there can never be any restrictions on abortion ever, he is not "an extremely radical liberal candidate," and he does not support "Communist thug tactics."
This is exactly the kind of post which embarasses Kerr.
Congratulations.
does anyone know what exhibit number we're up to? i lost count long ago.
Yep, why can't they demonstrate the reasonable and even-tempered nature of the most popular spokesmen for liberalism today - the Olbermanns, Frankens, Moores, and Mahers?
Vera Baker
When you name your home Casa Conspiracy, you should expect such guests.
Facts matter.
I don't think either candidate is hiding anything serious in their medical records. What business is it of ours if one or both of them got treated for jock itch? But to paint Obama of being secretive on this issue when compared to McCain is misleading.
And McCain's naval academy records are part of his military file, so he didn't release his "college transcripts" as such. Nor have most other candidates in the past.
"A likeness of the Illinois senator, in purple spray paint, was stenciled on the front window and outside columns of the Third Avenue headquarters [of the Republican Club of Southeast Volusia] overnight Friday."
Tell us what you really think.
City duck:
Dan M.'s post reveals a corrallory to Obama Derangement Syndrom: Denial of Reality Syndrome...I read DailyKos and no one is posting diaries claiming Palin's a man or should be gangraped
Check out what “comedienne” Sarah Barnhardt said.
he does not support "Communist thug tactics."
Look into what happened at radio station WGN: at the suggestion of the Obama campaign. Also: he told his supporters to get into other people’s faces, which while not exactly “communist thug,’ is not exactly civil, either.
But to answer your question, obviously the Other Side is worse.
Does the potentially deranged one attack those who agree with his basic position for not being sufficiently vehement or vicious to the opposition? If true, the possibly deranged is actually deranged.
Hypothetical example:
Random commenter: "I support McCain, but I don't think Obama is a muslim terrorist."
Obama Derangement Sufferer: "If we let people like you vote, we'll all be bowing to Mecca five times a day! You probably think Barak HUSSEIN Obama has that middle name for no reason!"
The truly deranged have no interest in support for their candidate or position. They want everyone to hate their opposition for exactly the same reasons that they hate the opposition, and nothing less will do. They have lost sight of the purpose, draining the swamp, because they'd much rather fight the alligators that exist only in their own minds.
Honestly, the fact that you find Outside The Beltway to be the only readable/sane center-right blog says a lot more about your derangements than it does about those on the right.
Really?
... and now you know why I hang out here, not at Kos. I also cringe at that sort of comment when it comes from someone whose broad views I share. Better to indulge a little smug superiority here than bang my head against the wall trying to convince my black sheep siblings how much better off we'd all be if only they were white.
More A.W.!
I think this shows how we can all be more likely to think the other side is more deranged than our own. Blogs have a tendency to debunk lunatic claims from the other side, while ignoring those from their own.
So Dan M., who I presume is to the right of centre and mostly reads right-wing sources, hears about claims like Palin not being a real woman, which most of left have never heard of because the mainstream left don't bother mentioning crazy claims like that. (Or so I imagine, at least I've never heard that rumour, or that Palin wore a pregnancy suit, or many of the other examples of left-wing derangement mentioned in this thread.)
On the otherhand, the right, like the left, doesn't spend much time debunking the crazies on their own side. So Dan M. hasn't heard about how many think Obama is a secret Muslim who wasn't born in the United States, and had someone (William Ayers?!) ghost-write his books.
So the non-crazy among us tend to only read about the other sides' lunatics, and no our own, so we conclude the other guys' have more than their fair share of nuts.
Of course it can't help that we also draw the derangement line in different places. So while I tend to think it is a respectably belief, leaning towards indisputable truth, that the Bush administration said things which turned out not to be true in the run up to the Iraq war, and that people died as a direct consequence of that war, Dan M. thinks that crosses the line into derangement territory.
As for when Obama supported infanticide, read here.
Obama actually is a radical and McCain is a moderate. i am not 100% happy with that, think McCain-feingold, but there you are.
Although, if you believe in the balance of power theory, the right should be more deranged now because we are behind in the polls, no?
Calling Obama a terrorist is clearly reaching, but is it deranged? I do not think so, it is just a very shortcut way to make/sustain the argument that he has terrorist friends/acquaintances.
Being in a public place and saying that if Palin comes to a large city she will be gang raped by big black brothers is clearly deranged. It is deranged because Bernhardt felt that there would be no retribution for this and that others would think it was funny and/or ok.
You can argue that this is one person, but there are many other leftist celebrities who have said things in poor taste.
Also, it is deranged because NOBODY on the left, that I saw, seemed to think THAT was racist.
But if Palin wears white, well, she's obviously signaling the KKK and is a racist.
Obama being accepting of terrorists/of terrorist mindset, to me, reasonable minds could disagree. We don't know because Obama really will not say. He hedges from did not know him, to did not know about his activities, to just a guy in my neighborhood, to just because I associate with him does not mean I accept his activities, to I thought he was rehabilitated (despite Ayers publicly saying that he did not regret his activities when Obama served on boards wit him), to...
But, whether Palin should be gang raped or whether that is even a remotely appropriate thing to say. Reasonable minds should not disagree on this subject.
There are other examples of course.
There are actual bumper stickers of Bush with a scope (target) on him. There are signs and sayings of Kill Bush. That is not deranged?
Does people with those stickers have kids? I hope not.
A.W. has to be a troll. It's too perfect.
The problem here is that bloggers (and really, people of all kinds that share their opinions serially and publicly) are naturally selected to be people who have things they want to say and will stick by them. Far more often than not, this selects for people who believe without evidence, as evidence collection in politics is a laborious and fruitless labor. The truth out there is obscured by so much noise that you wouldn't know it was true if it bit you on the nose.
That assumes that the truth is the kind of thing to bite you on the nose.
News to me.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome had nothing to do with Clinton's ideology -- Bill Clinton was a centrist, not an far-left extremist, yet the right wing loathed him. And the Oborg picked up where the right wing left off with their hatred of Hillary Clinton. To talk about ideology, when Bill Clinton was the victim of right wing CDS, and Hillary of Oborg CDS, is a non-sequitor.
And "derangement" has always existed in the populace -- but it wasn't until the media accepted the premises underlying CDS that "derangement syndromes" became important.
While McCain Derangement Syndrome is an ideological derangement, Palin Derangement Syndrome is a Politician X Syndrome. But the key here isn't that it exists, rather that its premises have been adopted by the media -- no matter how you slice it "Troopergate" is small potatoes when compared to Obama's Rezko real estate deal, yet the media treats Palin's infractions as major scandals, while pretty much ignoring its obligations to explore Obama (as others have noted, Obama never released his scholastic or medical records -- yet the media constantly discusses how intelligent Obama is, and questions McCain's mental and physical suitability for the presidency.)
If you will scroll down the comments on that page you will see this:
You know, the way that Rudy's campaign degenerated into noun, verb 9/11.
False piety and all that.
Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I just can't deal with the half-baked theories, wild-eyed insane hatred of Dems and Repubs, and talk about "re-education" camps being instituted by the winner of the 2008 election. It's certainly cost me one friendship, as I could no longer hear theories about how a missile struck the Pentagon, so I and told the person to take that 'stuff elsewhere.
Specific to an issue, I decided I would not listen any further to people who made crude sexual comments about Sarah Palin. That has meant the following talk show hosts I just gave up on.
Bill Press Show (Dem)
Randi Rhodes Show (Dem)
Ed Schultz Show (Dem)
Quinn &Rose (The War Room) (Repub)
Bob Lonsberry Show (available via streaming from WHAM in Rochester, NY) (Repub)
I try to listen to both sides and gather as much information as I can, including opinions on both sides. When I heard Sarah Palin being referred to in the way she was, I said that's enough. Disagree with her policies, but when the sexual comments started, I decided that the above folks had given up on reasoned talk, so I left.
But at the level of mainstream institutions and political candidates, not so much. Right-wing rumors that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster (e.g.) were given oodles of airtime in mainstream settings. That sort of insane nonsense paved the way for more innovations, such that now we can actually enjoy the sight of a GOP vice presidential candidate accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of "palling around with terrorists." We're talking maximal derangement among institutional elites. What exactly is the left-wing analogue in this narrative of "evenly matched" derangement?
Have we met at a Federalist Society event?
According to a great many people I've argued with, being libertarian is in and of itself a derangement; no additional syndrome is necessary.
Is the fact that I don't see any comments as over the top libertarian a symptom?
Yes. On the other hand, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Or the Rand quote about mixing food and poison, to the same effect.
FWIW, the $4 a gallon gas thing isn't exclusively liberal... this has long been a project of Charles Krauthammer... here's the most recent column I read...
hope the linky thing works
I was born and raised on the Upper West Side. I know the area well, and now I'm almost embarrassed to be from there.
Wow, it's almost like your biting sarcasm could save the world, if only it was distributed far and wide. I suggest coreographing youth to sing your praises and encouraging supporters to "get in the face" of dissenters.
I find it funny that nobody has said in a frank manner that judging a group by self-selected individuals invites both attention-seeking nuts and agents provocateur. Similarly, dismissing them as fringe, which most people seem very happy to do, almost always misstates their case. I'm glad you're all so happy to play the collectives against each other. I hope they eat you.
When they call for McCain's head, give us a call though.
Get serious. The McCain paraders got booed. BFD. No death threats, no calls for beheading, just some booing.
And the captions are a perfect example of conservative derangement.
Try to do better.
The derangement is not that what President Bush said about WMD's being in Iraq being untrue but rather, that it was a LIE.
There is a difference. A lie is saying something you know to be untrue but stating it as the truth: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski" springs to mind as a good example.
If the President believed, as everyone else did at the time, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and said so, believing it to be true, then it was not a lie--even if the statement was subsequently proven not to be true.
Then Bill Clinton and the UN and all those manly European countries were complicit. Or maybe they actually used the information they had. No, that's too simple; And it doesn't rhyme!
The government is all-powerful, and never doesn't know what citizens of the world are eating for breakfast.
The problem with derangement syndromes is just when you want to wish them away as the work of fevered minds, sometimes there's a grain of truth. Bill Clinton acted sleazy, Hillary *is* really harsh, Bush 43 does talk like a dummy sometimes, Obama has a serious number of lying-down-with-dogs problems, Palin may be great but has little experience (like one other candidate I can think of) and McCain is sometimes Angryman Junior. Troubling grains of truth...
The point I was trying to make is that these people, Coulter et al, are, to me, conservatism in the US today. And it's pretty repulsive.
Are there more rational conservative writers? Well, NRO is laughable. Maybe there's someone reasonable out there. Tell me.
I am sorry you consider Ann Coulter, et al as being the voice of conservatism. I am fairly conservative--and I don't. I suspect I could name writers I do admire and you would sneer at them as well--so I won't bother.
This usage always makes me laugh about the irony that accusing another of being a sophist is in fact a sophism. From Wikipedia, which has a nice statement: "The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques."
"Get serious. The McCain paraders got booed. BFD. No death threats, no calls for beheading, just some booing."
First let's note this is not a rally in a specific, place but a march through a large neighborhood. As such it provides a sample of the attitudes of a large block of citizens. On the other hand a rally attracts hotheads and is not necessarily representative of the area.
Second, are you asserting that an Obama march through an urban neighborhood would bring deaths threats? If so where? Let's assume that both marches are not pre-announced.
It appears that much of the discussion has ignored the fact that wingnuttery is time dependent. That suggests to me that the probability of spontaneous wingnuttery is much smaller that the probability of stimulated wingnuttery. If each process is balanced by it's inverse (it is not obvious that is the case in this context) then one would expect right and left wingnuttery to tend toward equality. If the stimulus is associated with an election that would account for the time dependence. Is it possible for wingnuttery to saturate?
> Calling Obama a terrorist is clearly reaching, but
> is it deranged? I do not think so, it is just a
> very shortcut way to make/sustain the argument that
> he has terrorist friends/acquaintances.
Oh lord. I have friends who are Republicans and Democrats. I have friends who are men and women, straight and otherwise, bike riders and fishermen, meat eaters and vegetarians, Jews, atheists, Christians and Muslims, farmers and lawyers. What does that make me?
These comments sections are basically anonymous and I don't demand or expect much from them in the quality of the individual presentations. Take some, leave some, fine. We commenters, as others have said, are sort of self-identifying extremists.
What I *do* expect is the bloggers themselves, men who are professors of *law*, to present arguments or observations that are at least superficially sound and supported by identified criteria. Arguments that are not on their face laughable.
Really I don't care what Prof. Lindgren's cause was, when he made the argument that we can infer X about Obama from his preference for tv show A, but cannot infer Y about McCain from his preference for show B. Really, I don't care which candidate he likes. That is *not* an argument, it's armchair psychology of the most pathetic kind and could just as easily have been flipped around A for B, X for Y.
If Prof.s Lindgren and Bernstein - the worst in this regard, but not the only - wish to state their political views here, bless their hearts they should do it. Professor Kerr and others do.
But it is beneath their dignity as professors of law to pass off poorly formed half-arguments as if they were well reasoned logical presentations. And if it weren't for the politics, I think they would know better.
My 2c.
festivus
1. Everybody thought Truman was a dope by the end.
2. Everybody liked Ike.
3. The left learned to despise Nixon because of his fervent anti-Communism (which history shows he was right to oppose).
4. The left adored Kennedy and unwisely suppressed his faults (ghost writers, whore-mongering, fecklessness, drug addiction).
5. The left despised Goldwater, ran a campaign of fear (the little girl and the nukes).
6. Everybody thought Johnson was a barbarian. But he pushed civil rights passage with Republican help, and the Party of Jim Crow made the RepubliKKKans into the racists.
7. The Left despised Nixon, the Right didn't despise McCarthy and Humphrey.
8. Nixon lost control of his demons, McGovern preached unilateral surrender and pacifism which scared everybody.
9. Jerry Ford was a bumbling idiot who told New York to drop dead and denied the left its final orgy of Nixon hating.
10. Carter was kind of, well goofy, at least he was a semi-competent Governor. Until malaise and the hostage debacle, and then he frustrated all of us.
11. Reagan was senile, fascist, a warmonger, "Ray-gun", supported Nicaraguan fascists against peaceful progressive leftist revolutionaries.
12. Everybody liked Mondale, but when he said "I'm gonna raise taxes", we said no thanks.
13. Poppy Bush against Mikey D, more of the same versus liberal change. Bush was your first ex-husband. But the right said Mikey was soft on crime, let violent crimminals go free, and when he went for a ride in the tank, everybody laughed at him.
14. Clinton was a likable rogue, everybody knew it, he kept all the Democratic votes, and he owes it to Ross Perot, who split the Repubs and Inds with Poppy.
15. Lots of people can't abide likable rogues, so even though Clinton worked from the center, after his disastrous first two years of trying to pull us left, lots of righties got CDS. Drug running, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Arkansas trailer trash.
16. Clinton didn't get 50%, everybody liked Bob Dole, but Dole and Perot split the vote again. Leftist fems who squealed like teenyboppers over JFK, sold out their ideals to keep those trailer trash ladies from hurting their hero Saturday Night Bill. Repub Congresscritters caught CDS and put on an impeachment show trial.
17. Bush stole the election from the inventor of the Internet, Bush lied, people died, Bush knew about 9/11. Bush is a dummy, evil Cheney runs things. Bush this, Bush that. BDS becomes an epidemic. Chimpy McHitlerburton approved Abu Ghraib, blood for oil. Bush evilly lies about everything.
18. The evil righties lie so much and so often, repeating the big Swift-boat lie about John Kerry, and stole ohio. The BDS epidemic rages on.
19. Anybody who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. McCain and Palin are inciting the Right rabble to riot.
20. Everybody thought Bush was a dope by the end.
To summarize:
The Left caught xDS first with Nixon. It grew stronger with Reagan. It jumped the species barrier with Clinton. And it became a full-blown raging epidemic with Bush.
Advantage: conservatives, so far. Let's hope it doesn't become a pandemic.
This, like any observation about a group, is not absolute. There are, of course, counter-examples on both sides. This is an argument about magnitude.
Someone famous once said something to the effect of "The right thinks the left is wrong; the left thinks the right is evil."
That corresponds with what I have seen over many, many years.
During the Clinton years, the most extreme of the right came out. We heard the Foster conspiracy theories (and I know people who still believe them) and various other things. And, of course, the Survivalists, etc, were in full bloom (including McVeigh). But I rarely heard the sort of hatred against Clinton that I hear routinely against Bush.
There are many right wing talk show hosts. Only a couple of them emit the hatred that I heard every time I listened to Air America.
The odd thing is that conservatives have faced an ideologically hostile media since Vietnam. And that media has moved more and more left - to today's embarrassing prostration at the feet of the Obama capaign. And yet, although we are angry about it, we still don't show (in general) the anger that the left has displayed - especially in BDS.
Maybe that will change under Obama. Maybe it's really a matter of technology and zeitgeist. But I think it also represents a bit of a world-view difference between left and right.
Conservatives are, more or less, conservative. That means, among other things, respecting existing institutions and ideas, even if we disagree with them. The American left, on the other hand, was deeply infused with radicalism as a result of Vietnam, and that radicalism admits no compromise, and justifies any sort of tactic. Furthermore, the elite left generally believes conservatives to be dumb (how many times did we hear this about Reagan or W), and thus unworthy of intellectual respect. Perhaps these (admittedly grossly overgeneralized) differences explains the difference in XDS prevalence among the two populations.
Bush et al made statements that were undoubtedly outright lies. I've already been through this at VC, like here, here and here.
You might disown her. Trouble is, too many people don't.
Coulter said this:
In the National Review, no less, arguably the leading conservative journal. And then is repeatedly invited to CPAC, where she shares a platform with Romney, who has this to say about her (video):
Where is the D counterpart to this evidence?
- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order
To say that Obama is a terrorist is probably not insane; rather; it's lying for political gain. No one can really believe that.
BUT--When people say it is ODS when one points out that he has consorted with an unrepentant terrorist, I strongly disagree. That's a fact. Why is it out-of-bounds?
"2. Everybody liked Ike. "
I still do, and I wish we could resurrect him.
But keep in mind that he was dismissed by the cognoscenti as a mental midget, when in fact he was highly intelligent and in control of his administration. Also, the Democrats attacked him from 1957-on for letting the Soviets get ahead of the US in terms of military might. (They hadn't.)
Ecclesiastes was right, of course. Nothing new under the Sun, and all that is has been before. I mean, Cicero kept busy accusing Mark Antony of wanting to make himself emperor. Imagine that! Antonius Derangement Syndrome at its worst!
Holy Cheese! I AGREE with JBG on something? Did someone turn on the Infinite Improbability Drive while I wasn't looking?
Jaysusmaryanjoseph!
Personally, I think reckless disregard for the truth should be treated as lying. I'm not making this comment with reference to anything in particular, just noting how I understand the meaning of the word "lie" generally.
You left out Rich Lowery. :)
And look what happened to Cicero.
I do think it's important to keep some perspective and remember that until about 1688 or so, politics was pretty much a death sport. Not for the faint of heart.
Did something happen to Cicero? What?
Is this why he hasn't been sending me greeting card on the Ides of March?
No, you agreed with me. JBG was quoting my post. He thinks the left has no body as loony on the left as Coulter is on the right. I would mention Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and a few others--and that was without even 15 seconds of contemplation.
It is certainly true that we tend to remember those events which fit our schema and severely discount those of the other side. Michael Drake remembers that the Vince Foster murder myth received "oodles" of time in the mainstream press. I remember that it was mostly G. Gordon Liddy and a lot of emails. I also remember that Hillary Clinton's and Web Hubbell's behavior that morning, blocking the FBI from investigating and refusing to let the press see documents, fed that derangement (I don't believe they were hiding murder. That they were hiding something is the only explanation that fits the facts). I also remember the 900+ FBI files of political figures, friends and enemies, brought to the Clinton White House. I still consider it one of the most frightening breaches of civil liberties in the history of the republic. It doesn't get a lot of mention now, even on the right. I am sure Mr. Drake could counter with things I neglect to remember, and he might even be right.
In the face of these very subjective impressions we all have, and lacking an alternate universe where counterfactuals can be played out, we try to find objective evidence. It is difficult to measure derangement, so we often use media bias as a proxy. If it can be established that the common impression of where the center or balance is is different from the actual neutral point, that goes some way to giving evidence (not "proving," politics is more like a preponderance than reasonable doubt standard) that one side's impression of what is extreme is likely flawed.
Such evidence is hard to come by, but the studies thus far suggest that the MSM is somewhat left of center (not far left, but consistently left). Also, the number of defectors from left to right (I am one) who assure us that the bias is real should carry some weight. I would assign some weight to the fewer right-to-left defectors as well. The defectors group in both directions will be rich in both people who moved for very poor reasons - job prospects, social acclamation - and good, reasonable criticism that even those who remain where they are should heed.
You might have to put the cork back in the champagne bottle, because the words you quoted weren't said by me.
Is there evidence that ACORN's work has ever led to a single fraudulent vote (as distinct from a fraudulent registration)? Just curious.
hoosier read my post carelessly and so did you. What is the story with Rs and reading comprehension?
It's not a question of whether or not there is a D counterpart to Coulter. I asked you to show me the D counterpart to Coulter who shared a stage with, and was glowingly introduced by, the D counterpart to Romney.
I don't know, but I sure hope they don't start checking ids at polls. I'm glad Democrats aren't trying to stop that.
If that were true I'd vote for him. The NL doesn't seem to want to move out of the 1960s on its own.
When mentioning Coulter's relation to National Review, you failed to mention that she was booted for those precise comments. Sorry, I will no longer trust anything you say about lying. You are an advocate rather than disputant.
I mentioned Al Franken--and he is considered seriously enough by the Democrats to be their party's nominee for the United States Senate.
You are just figuring that out?
That's a dishonest question. The questioner knows it. There is no way of proving a vote is fraudulent once it's cast. Or, if there is, there are no prosecutors interested in following up. See Wash state.
Since the definition of "proof" is somebody convicted, there is no "proof".
The derangement is not that what President Bush said about WMD's being in Iraq being untrue but rather, that it was a LIE.
There is a difference. A lie is saying something you know to be untrue but stating it as the truth: "I did not have sex[ual relations] with that woman, Miss Lewinski" springs to mind as a good example.
</blockquote>
I agree Clinton's statement an obvious and (nearly) indisputable lie.
As for Bush and his administration, it seems to me his defence comes down to an unseemly Clintonian wrangling over what "lie" means.
For example, Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council convinced me that the Iraq invasion was necessary. Now I think he was lying when, for example, he said: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction."
Now I agree it's implausible that Colin Powell knew at the time Iraq had no biological weapons, and I'll grant that it's likely he honestly believed they did (obviously I cannot know that with certainty), but for my money he lied. When someone says that "[t]here can be no doubt" about something when he actually knows things aren't so certain, and it turns out that what he's saying isn't true, then I think he's lying.
I can see how one could regard this as mere exaggeration. I think that's just splitting hairs, but I think this is something people can honestly disagree about. I don't think it's comparable to derangement like "Obama is a Muslim terrorist" or "Palin isn't Trig's biological mother".
"Better to indulge a little smug superiority here than bang my head against the wall trying to convince my black sheep siblings how much better off we'd all be if only they were white."
Yeah, that's the thing I can't figure out, the left and their liberal enablers have enjoyed basically unopposed control of our established cultural church (Hollywood, Academia, the Press, what's left of the actual Mainline Church) for decades, and yet they insist on playing counterculture. If they'd stepped up and led, they'd likely have had much more political/economic power long before now.
We'll see if they can finally pull it off with Obama.
At the VC, the derangement hangs around for all to see.
We disagree. There is a difference between a lie and a mistake of belief. They are not synonymous. Lying is a conscious act.
Unhinged Liberals Gone Wild
But to clarify my thoughts: Coulter is an embarrassment to the right. And a fraud: I doubt that she actually believes what she says, but she has a good thing going, and wants to stay on the gravy train. If Obama is elected, expect her to write a book saying that Nazis will soon be riding around the country on dinosaurs. Again.
And every talk show will have her on in order to boost ratings.
But I'm with you as far as the left having the nutters as well. Noam Chomsky comes to mind, and he doesn't have Coulter's legs.
Kevin R.: Die you bastard!
JBG--My reading comprehension problem is a result of my public school education. Vouchers would have helped me, of course. But some people don't support them . . .
I find it funny that JBG is trying his best to insult people on a thread concerning the lack of civility in public discourse. Not surprising. But funny.
One reason I failed to mention it is because I didn't know. Thanks for telling me.
Another reason I didn't mention it is because it's not terribly material. They were perfectly happy to publish her remarks. Presumably they have editors?
Good point. That's actually a fairly good example. I think it's the best you're going to be able to do. In my opinion, Moore's track record of offensive statements can't hold a candle to Coulter's. But I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
What's wrong with being an advocate?
What is the accusation against him, other than vulgar comedy? Where is his track record of making statements as offensive as Coulter's?
AVI,
You are just figuring that out?
Heh!