Burying the Needle on the Hypocrisy Meter: Lefty Tweeters Wish for Sarah Palin’s Death Because of her Violent Rhetoric (Update: Schultz and Alan Grayson Debate Evil Right Wing Vitriol)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Important Update: See this post exonerating two of the tweeters.
On Twitter they are reacting to the claims that Sarah Palin incited murder against Giffords with inflamed rhetoric by having an evolved, civil and intelligent discussion about the limits of free speech.
Ah, who am I kidding?
My favorite was the one that admitted she had nothing to do with Giffords shooting, but said they wanted her to die anyway.
Also, to be fair, some merely wish for her to get cancer and die. Do remember that these are generally the same people who want the government to control your healthcare destiny.
Oh, and that bumper sticker mentioned in one? It exists.
Meanwhile the first polling data is out concerning this idiocy and even CBS news’s polling outfit is having trouble finding Democrats who blame the so-called extreme rhetoric:
Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown – 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.
I will note the sample size is on the small side, and CBS is notoriously biased toward the left and Democrats. Still, I bet if the question was “do you blame heated conservative or Republican rhetoric for the shooting?” the numbers would crater. Smear fail, Democrats!
Meanwhile before you get to that critical paragraph, CBS news says this:
The lone suspect in the attack, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, had expressed in recent years a deep-seated distrust of the government and personal animosity toward Giffords, according to evidence collected by authorities, YouTube videos he made and accounts from former acquaintances.
So they don’t mention that the deep seated distrust of government includes the fact he believes they are engaged in mind control (something Representative Kucinich has stirred the pot on in the past), 9-11 Trutherism and opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only time the liberal media appears to be beyond partisanship or ideological labels is 1) when a Democrat or liberal does something bad, or 2) when a Republican or conservative does something good.
Update: As though that twitter video was not bad enough, here is Alan Grayson and Fast Eddie Schultz discussing where to draw the line.
Grayson of course is the guy who called his opponent in the last election a terrorist and said that the Republican plan on healthcare is to “die quickly.”
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
The meme that it was “hateful speech” on the part of the right has died a rapid death with the revelations about Loughner. Loner, distrust of government, druggie, etc. Really, just another Ted Kaczynski without the degrees.
Yet the left will continue with the meme until they can milk it no more. More security for Congressmen, laws against using symbols, yada, yada, yada. Why? It falls right in with their agenda. You know, that whole “never let a crisis go to waste” mindset.
Are the American people really so stupid as to not realize that these who are using this “crisis” are crawling up on the backs of the dead to lessen our freedom even more with their nanny state laws?retire05 (e0b7e7) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:41 am
How much pressure must there be now on Speaker Boehner from the minority to re-institute and expand the Congressional Air Force so that these Stalwarts of Democracy can further avoid having to mingle [even in the most secure environments where “the system(s) worked”] with the Great Unwashed Rabble that they rule over?AD-RtR/OS! (9e2890) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:54 am
Is any further indication needed that The Ruling Class thinks of themselves as above and apart from The Republic, and their myopia over the unintended consequences of their actions?
This course of action would just ensure the feeling of disenfranchisement that lays awash in the body-politik.
i read somewhere that boehner (sp?) was himself going to continue to fly commercial.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:01 am
The left has been vague about what is or should be considered violent rhetoric. Thanks to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, here are some examples:
1. Roger Ebert’s Site Praises Left-wing Bush Assassination Film
2. Kathy Griffin Says 2011 is 16-year-old Willow Palin’s ‘year to go down’
3. Alec Baldwin threatens to Stone Henry Hyde, kill children
4. Joy Behar wants that ‘bitch’ Sharron Angle to go ‘to hell’
5. Aaron Sorkin happy when hunters shoot each other
6. Playboy Magazine’s Hate-F**k List of Conservative Women
12. Rosie O’Donnell Calls bush ‘war criminal’ who must ‘be held accountable’
7. Montel Williams Urges Michele Bachmann to kill herself
8. Perez Hilton Calls Miss California a ‘c*nt’
9. Jeff Wells Praises metaphor of ‘Hobo’ film blasting wealthy with shotgun
10. Sean Penn Calls Reagan’s Alzheimer’s ‘Justice’
11. George Clooney Mocks Charlton Heston’s Alzheimer’s
12. Wanda Sykes Hopes Rush Limbaugh’s Kidneys Fail
Thanks for the help. I think what liberals mean when they complain about conservative rhetoric leading to violence is that when they hear our ideas, they want to get violent.Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:04 am
AW’s correct – Boehner just reiterated last evening his plans to continue to use commercial air, and that’s the entirely correct response:
Are the American people really so stupid as to not realize that these who are using this “crisis” are crawling up on the backs of the dead to lessen our freedom even more with their nanny state laws?
You should take comfort that they’re not that stupid, and the fact that they elected the GOP majority should go a long way towards that conclusion. Remember that everyone in the MFM to the POTUS was saying that anyone opposing his programs were de facto racists, and later on we had the same tired trope in the recent attempts to pass the DREAM act. Epic fails on both parts.Dmac (498ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:09 am
I will quibble with this:
> The left has been vague about what is or should be considered violent rhetoric.
Nah, see its very simple. if the speaker is a conservative or republican…Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:11 am
I hate to tell you this, AZ Bob, but most of the stuff you’ve cited is not “violent”. Calling someone a c*nt, or saying that someone must be held legallty accountable or that they’re glad they have a disease is not violent. Go back and see what Ann Coulter has said about people.Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:22 am
Bugger off, Yelverton.JD (593e0b) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:48 am
Jim is right – it is only violent when the SEIU thugs go out and beat somebody up.JD (593e0b) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:59 am
Yelverton is going manic again. Fundamentally dishonest, at a core base level.JD (593e0b) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:01 am
The only problem with “truth” is among the hate-crazed leftists. They abandon it immediately.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:02 am
DG – That link you supplies relies primarily on a report from the ADL which appears to approximately 8 years old and has few numerical facts since 2000. Can you confirm that? It’s sort of like that discredited DHS report from 2009 in that way.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:18 am
I think Yelverton just reads the headlines of what he links and doesn’t bother to read what’s in the actual body of the link, embarrassing himself in a classic Glenn Greenwald fashion. Dimwit.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:20 am
I hate to tell you this, AZ Bob, but most of the stuff you’ve cited is not “violent”. Calling someone a c*nt, or saying that someone must be held legallty accountable or that they’re glad they have a disease is not violent. Go back and see what Ann Coulter has said about people.
I probably shouldn’t do this but: explain which statements that have been cited by libs as proof that conservatives are at fault for the shooting actually are violent.Gerald A (9ef895) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:22 am
“> The left has been vague about what is or should be considered violent rhetoric.
Nah, see its very simple. if the speaker is a conservative or republican…”
A.W. – Exactly, because to paraphrase Rep. Alcee Hastings, the left makes the rules, and they are making them up as they go.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:23 am
Jim – Also remember that your side does not have a sense of humor or understand satire, so when someone like Coulter consistently uses imagery you object to in her speaking and writing it goes straight to your lizard brain and a fight response rather than the hyperbole response she is “gunning” for. Ooops, I used a violent word.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:26 am
Answer the questions:DG (742d38) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:29 am
Are the gun blogs generally right wing or liberal? Is the anti-government militia movement in America generally right wing or liberal?
You know the answers, you aparently have a problem with the truth. Why?
DG, why do you hate people so much, and why do you engage in violent, hateful rhetoric? Why are you such a mass – murdering psychopath?Dmac (498ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:36 am
It doesn’t matter what people believe right now. In 1991, most people believed Clarence Thomas (“A New York Times/CBS News poll taken October 28, 1991, found that 58 percent of the respondents believed Thomas: only 24 percent believed Hill.” — http://law.jrank.org/pages/10222/Sexual-Harassment-CLARENCE-THOMAS-ANITA-HILL-HEARINGS.html). After only a year, “According to a Wall Street Journal/nbc News poll, 44% of registered voters now say Hill was telling the truth, up from 24% a year ago, while support for Thomas’ version of events has dropped from 40% to 34%.” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976770,00.html) I’ve read, but can no longer find references, that more recent polls show even higher support for Hill. It’s not as if MORE information came out to explain the difference; quite the contrary: over time peoples recollection of the underlying facts faded from when folks watched excerpts from the Senate Hearings each night on the news during the scandal. But…the drumbeat from the Media establishment continued — and like water wearing away a rock, it had its effect over time.
Every time terrorism with links either to the left (e.g. ELF, ALF, etc) or to islamic radicals comes up, SOMEBODY will point out “Oh, yeah, well, what about Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh? Huh??”
One problem: McVeigh was an athiest. But “everybody knows” he was a Christian terrorist.
It’s all about shaping the narrative for the future. In two years, “everybody” will “know” that the perp who “shot that AZ congresswoman” was a right winger, or a tea partier, “or something like that”.
This behavior of the left and the media (BIRM) is sick and amoral — but effective in its Machiavellian way, unfortunately.BobInFL (bae5a3) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:55 am
Daley, Ann’s comments are hyperbole and do trigger the expected response. They really aren’t meant to be humorous, unless you think comments like hoping that Bush chokes are funny.
Gerald, it’s the imagery (as far as I understand it) that Palin used that the left is upset with. But I’m upset with some of the lies that the right repeatedly uses against the left and get’s away with (which is a different discussion than whether the right is responsible in this instance). The right complains about how the left indiscriminately paints all the left with the same brush, yet Rush snd others go on and indiscriminately paints everyone to the left of him with the same type of brush and gets a pass.Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:56 am
BobinFl is right on. The goal of the media is not objectivity. Their goal is not to influence those of us paying close attention. No, they want to frame the issue in the collective minds of people who catch a few minutes of news from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC etc. Folks like my 92 year old mother-in-law are their target audience not news junkies. She and folks like her will remember this kindly old sheriff deploring the hateful rhetoric of Limbaugh without ever actually seeing/hearing any evidence that Limbaugh, Beck or whoever said anything hateful.largebill (1d1579) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:21 am
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 1/11/2011 @ 7:01 am
Yes, the Speaker has re-affirmed his decision to scrap HR-One, and to avail himself of commercial aviation.AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:46 am
But, you have many of the same faces that committed the libel against the TEA Party over epithets allegedly hurled in their direction (which Brietbart offered $100K for proof of, and never had to pay out 1-cent) demanding that they not have to endure the “insecure” environment that is found in airport concourses.
If Shakespeare were writing today, he would have Dick the Butcher talking about journalists, not lawyers.AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:51 am
I second largebill’s second of BobInFL. “Everybody knows” that the Tet Offensive was a huge win for the Viet Cong and US soldiers “acted in a way eminiscent of Genghis Khan” (well, the meaning was the same, if not the words) in Vietnam. I wonder how many people “know” Bush stole the election from Gore in Florida in 2000?
On a different thread I joked about wondering what the “Journolist” (or “Child of Journolist”) has to say about this. I wonder if there are additional “methods to their madness”- is this just general disinformation? Part of trying to justify the fairness doctrine? More trying to diss Palin*? Distracting attention from something else happening in Washington at the moment?
*If they think Obama would beat Palin, why do they keep after her? So they can link other conservatives to “just like Palin”? Because they think the harder they push the more the conservatives will push back and give Palin the nomination?MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:55 am
oh absolutely. boehner might treat his own case differently than all the others.
btw, as far as shakespeare is concerned, actually that, first kill all lawyers comment was really saying, “this is how you extablish dictatorship. first you kill all lawyers.” in other words, its actually a compliment to the profession.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:56 am
“That article was from 2010.”
DG – It’s obvious that the human rights article was from 2010 because it was dated. That was not my question. They relied on a primary source which was undated and appears very old. You don’t healp yourself with BS links.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:56 am
Comment by AD-RtR/OS
You know Shakespeare was a hate-filled right wing conservative, don’t you?MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:59 am
“Sean Penn Calls Reagan’s Alzheimer’s ‘Justice’”
What gets me is that anyone gets excited about what Sean Penn thinks. The guy is a total scumbag, a parasite on society (like all entertainers who never do anything with their lives except amuse people). He’s a totally non-productive person, a court jester, a carnival sideshow act…and, that’s all he is.
Anyone who gets worked up about the opinions of a person who’s value to society is exactly the same as the dog-faced boy at the carnival sideshow is wasting their time.Dave Surls (64533a) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:02 am
Notice how many of the quotes are from those who “wish” or “hope” for evil to befall Sarah Palin. Reinforces what I have said before: the denizens of the left really do appear to believe in magical thinking. It is almost as if they are afraid of her.Bar Sinister (3cf6aa) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:02 am
Except for the Sufi bit, doesn’t Laughner sound a lot like our own Quellist Kate, the antiwar tropes,narciso (6075d0) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:13 am
the pretensious logical culdesacs, the focus on dreaming rather than reality
DG – That SPLC report is another laugher. You probably didn’t read it either. I love the left’s rush to label violent incidents as a product of right wing extremism. Resisting arrest on domestic violence charge which later turned up political literature in the suspects home means the resistance was due to political leanings! ZOMG!!!!! The Holocaust Museum Shooter’s beliefs, a 9/11 truther, who’s anti-semitism and hatred of neocons tracks more closely with the left than the right is still incorrectly labeled by those hacks.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:26 am
Liberal rhetoric is a failure to communicate…jcloh (27638e) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:27 am
“Daley, Ann’s comments are hyperbole and do trigger the expected response. They really aren’t meant to be humorous, unless you think comments like hoping that Bush chokes are funny.”
Jim – Thanks for the response. My impression is that most people on the left have never actually read Coulter’s writings. What they have read or heard is out of context sound bites and they do generate the expected response, which means Coulter is hitting her mark. Friends on the left I have engaged in conversation about Coulter with and to whom I have lent copies of her books universally have never wound up reading them. Quizzing blog commenters about Coulter, they virtually know nothing except for the sound bites. It’s the same for Malkin.
So if people understand that her commentary is schtick intended to get a response, why is it a freaking problem? Are you saying people on the left are too dumb to understand – it seems partly that way since they throw pies at her and shut down her speeches. They don’t do that to liberal speakers who use similar inflammatory rhetoric. Can you explain that one to me, Jim?
Can you point to anybody on the right who has taken Coulter’s words seriously?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:37 am
Reuters Headline – Majority doesn’t blame rhetoric for Giffords shooting
Meme fail!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:48 am
dude you like totally didn’t read the post. that reuters headline is totally based an on article i highlighted.
mind you that is not as irritating as when kman argues against me without actually reading what i read… but dude, come on… 🙂Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:53 am
Daley, she graduated from my law school. I’d be the first one to cut her some slack, but the fact is that she (and others in the regular media and on the right and the left) make money of off controversy and hyperbole.
The problem with her continuing to say these things is the “big lie” theory. Over time, people become conditioned to hearing and accepting the stuff she says about the left, including some things that tend to demonize and dehumanize them.Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:56 am
BTW, that should have been “make money off of controversy and hyperbole”. But you knew that.Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:57 am
Has Al Franken weighed in yet on how bombastic radio talk show hosts are a danger and should be shunned from political discourse?Blue Ox (ff919a) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:58 am
Gun blogs are probably conservative, though I know so many democrats who are gun enthusiasts here in Texas. I have no idea what you’re talking about with this ‘anti government militia movement’. It’s quite clear that Jared wasn’t a militia type, but rather a crazy loner. The word militia refers to all able bodies citizens. Your own state probably defines you as part of the militia.
I think you’re trying to be dishonest.
So my answer to this is that I don’t know anything about this irrelevant group.
OK. Now you answer my questions:
Was left winger Bill Ayers ‘anti government’ when he plotted his attacks? That meeting John Kerry attended that discussed murdering US Senators: was it left wing?
Was the person who shot Reagan, or the one who shot JFK, or the many who talked about shooting W… etc etc.
I don’t see why those questions are relevant to Jared, though. But they are counterexamples to the argument you’re making, proving you wrong in premise. I guess I have to explain that so morons don’t think I’m saying the left is responsible for Jared being a psycho.
Answer my questions.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:00 am
Guys, let me suggest you are all taking yelverton too seriously.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:06 am
“dude you like totally didn’t read the post. that reuters headline is totally based an on article i highlighted.”
A.W. – I know that. It is now showing up as one of the top headlines on my Yahoo home page!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:13 am
It has nine headlines, three of them local. I consider the fact that the above was one of the other six noteworthy.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:15 am
“Is the anti-government militia movement in America generally right wing or liberal?”\
Depends on how you to define right wing and left wing.
I define all the way left wing as: wants government to control everything.
I define all the way right wing as: wants government to control nothing.
So, by definition an anti-government militia is right wing, the way I define things.
So, now what?Dave Surls (64533a) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:16 am
anarchism is not a right wing doctrine.
and the left doesn’t want everything controlled by the government. they support the “right” to abortion, for instance.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:19 am
But that’s really not fair. I know you’re just trying to be honest, but ‘government’ is vague.
Jared, for example, was not anti government, period. He was anti Giffords’s government conspiracy to control minds with grammar and hide the aliens. He was against Bush’s government and his war efforts. He was against Bush’s government that caused 9/11.
Granted, much of the government he is opposed to doesn’t exist.
Socialists are anti government, when the government is conservative. Conservatives are anti government, when the government is bloated, intrusive on civil rights, or not enforcing laws.
But virtually all conservatives do want a government, and many are willing to fight to preserve it by serving in the government’s military. Meanwhile, a huge number of assassinations and coups are committed in the name of the left wing. Entire governments have been destroyed by the left.
It just doesn’t seem fair to say that being anti-government, in and of itself, is a conservative idea. We’re for a particular kind of government that happens to be smaller, less powerful, and more effective, but that’s not because our end goal is no government at all.
There’s really nothing in common between a mainstream Republican and an anarchist.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:23 am
But I’m upset with some of the lies that the right repeatedly uses against the left and get’s away with
So now you’ll have no trouble whatsoever in posting a detailed and summarized list of all of those awful, awful lies the right has expounded upon over lo these many years. Right, Jim?
(crickets chirping)Dmac (498ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:41 am
Dmac, how about we start with the following:
“It’s not the way we think. And we certainly don’t look to these events to move our political agenda forward. But the left is depraved, empty, and without any political substance whatsoever,” [Rush] said.Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:10 pm
Oh, and as a related post, the right certainly does look to use those events to move its political agenda forward. Remember all the discussion after the Virginia Tech shooting about how Virginia Tech and all colleges should let students carry guns on campus?Jim (87e69d) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:11 pm
Jim is such a model of decorum, isn’t he? It’s hard to believe he’s the same guy who once told me: “Go back to your day job of being a low paid, low quality government employee, Patterico.”
And yet he is.Patterico (099569) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:31 pm
It’s amazing that those tweeting morons don’t realize they are using their REAL NAMES and pictures, making it ever so easy for the FBI if something happens to Governor Palin.Fred (91d36d) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:41 pm
But the left is depraved, empty, and without any political substance whatsoever,”
Funny, but I fail to see the calls of violence towards those who disagree with his political views. Is there a reading and comprehension problem here? Please try again, cupcake.Dmac (498ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:43 pm
Jim, you really are dishonest. Concealed Carry reform is not an agenda of “conservatives” nor of the “Right” in general. You don’t see it from any national conservative leader nor any national conservative media. Its the cause of a large subset of gun owners of all political stripes.
And why do you think that pointing out that the response among the CCW community toward removing campus restrictions on permitted concealed carry is automatically and indisputably some sort of bad policy? Because you are clueless to the merits, you just want to smear people.
So no reasoned discourse from you, I see.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:50 pm
i am pretty sure they are too d1ckless to actually do anything to her.
you ever heard about the first presidential assassination attempt? a guy shot Andrew Jackson, and by the end of the scuffle, they had to pull Jackson off his would be assassin as he beat the tar out of him. i suspect that an attempt to kill Palin would go similarly.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:50 pm
“Remember all the discussion after the Virginia Tech shooting about how Virginia Tech and all colleges should let students carry guns on campus?”
Jim – Are you injecting politics into a proposed practical solution for shootings such as the one which occurred at Virginia Tech? I hope that’s not the case here.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:56 pm
“anarchism is not a right wing doctrine.”
It is the way I define things. No government is all the way to the right. Anarchy (defined as a society that has NO government) is the ultimate right wing position.
“and the left doesn’t want everything controlled by the government. they support the “right” to abortion, for instance”
When it comes to abortion, I’m all the way left wing. I want it completely outlawed, and I want the government to enforce that.
I’m not right wing on every single issue, Aaron…just on most issues. And, the people we call lefties aren’t left wing on every issue (at least most lefties I know aren’t), just on most issues.
Now, back to my original question. By my definition, an anti-government militia is right wing.
So…what of it?Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:00 pm
Dave, well simply put, you are wrong factually and historically. Anarchism is a socialism ideology.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:02 pm
but my point is society doesn’t accept those definitions of right and left wing.
now feel free to say that both are hypocritical. okay. but that is how our political spectrum is, in broad strokes, defined.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:03 pm
The SPLC has long been an utterly discredited organization. Its “reports” are packed with misrepresentations, exaggerations and at times outright lies. And have been for a long time. In the late ’80’s, it put out a claim that a competitive pistol league in California was a front for “white supremacists” – at that moment, the league was in fact run by a black Los Angeles Fire dept Captain. So I’ve despised them for decades.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:06 pm
Dave, I guess the real problem is that all the way to the right is compeltely in contradiction with the rest of the right. Wanting an effective and effecient government is not compatible with no government and chaos. Sure, conservatives want less government intrusion and power and spending than ‘progressives’, but I just don’t think it’s fair to say that the fullest version of conservatism is to just shrink it down forever. It’s not like balancing the budget is merely an effort to start sweeping the government away.
I think mainly this contradiction shows that politics aren’t really on some horizontal line of degree-ness. One doesn’t level up in conservatism until they decide there should be chaos. That’s just a completely different idea, totally unrelated.
But I understand what you’re trying to say.
At any rate, opposition to the government is obviously not a conservative idea. It’s just opposition to the government. If you oppose a liberal government that could be because you’re conservative, but Jared’s opposition to Bush’s Iraq war, or his planning 9/11 (snort) was not because he was conservative. It’s because he created his own reality.
I know you’re not linking them, but I’m simply saying the convenience of placing political views on a spectrum is probably not matched by the accuracy.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:09 pm
“Socialists are anti government…”
Depends what you mean by socialism, Dustin.
If you’re using the standard definition…
“a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
…it’s pretty much impossible to be a socialist and anti-government.
If you mean hippie-style socialism (as practiced by myself and others back in the 1960s and 1970s, and which I still engage in to a certain extent), well, that’s a different story. That type of socialism entails shared control of means of production and/or distribution of goods and services, but there is NO government or state to coerce people into going along with the program. You do it if you want to, and you don’t if you don’t.
The latter kind of socialism is totally fine with me…it’s the standard kind I object to.
As I said, I still belong to groups which engage in communal economic activities, but I will only be part of them if they’re 100% voluntary.Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:21 pm
Comment by MD in Philly — 1/11/2011 @ 9:59 am
I think Will was Sarah Palin’s first media consultant.AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:23 pm
dave…the way I learned it, anarchists reside at 6 o’clock on the political circle, where the Right and Left meet once again. So, you can have RW Anarchists, and LW Anarchists; but neither are particularly helpful for a functioning society.
SPQR…AZ has the ultimate CCW reform:AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:30 pm
Constitutional Carry, where any citizen who may lawfully possess firearms can carry concealed without a permit of any kind – same as in VT & AK!
“Dave, well simply put, you are wrong factually and historically. Anarchism is a socialism ideology.”
You can’t have a state controlled economy and no state at the same time.
A true anarchist believes that there should be NO state and NO government. That’s what the word means.
Socialism, by the most commonly used definition, is a society where the state/government controls all economic activity (means of production/distribution of goods).
You can’t be both a socialist and an anarchist as those two terms are most commonly used.Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:34 pm
Read my comment again.
Good Lord. Yes, you can be socialist and oppose a government THAT ISN’T SOCIALIST. Someone who is anti a certain government is not necessarily not a socialist.
Very few people who are sane oppose government of any kind. That notion is academic (and completely unhelpful in a real world case). People who opposed Bush’s government were not necessarily conservatives who wanted less government.
The concepts I’m describing don’t seem hard to grasp, but sometimes I explain things poorly. Hopefully I’m making myself clear.
Saying it’s not possible for a socialist to be anti government is completely absurd, since most people who protest our government are, actually socialists.
See?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:45 pm
By which I mean, they don’t oppose government, in and of itself. 99.999999999999999999999% of conservatives very, very much want a government. They very, very much support the idea of a government. They just want it to be a limited, federal government. One that isn’t trying to solve all the problems in society, but does its actual work instead.
The concept of reducing the scope of government, for the purpose of having a sustainable country, is completely unrelated to anarchy. If you are forced to put them on a spectrum, some may confuse the issue by saying anarchists are simply the most conservative people because they want the least government, but their ideas and goals and policies are completely incompatible with, say Republicans.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:48 pm
“but my point is society doesn’t accept those definitions of right and left wing.”
But, my power/freedom spectrum makes more sense.
It puts totalitarians (Nazis, Communists) on the same side and it puts anti-totalitarians (Libertarians/Anarchists) on the other side…where they all belong.
A spectrum analysis of politics which places Anarchists and Communists on one side of a spectrum and Nazis and Libertarians on the other side has the “virtue” of making absolutely no sense.
And, I like things that make sense.Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:50 pm
Nazi’s reside somewhere between Fabian Socialists and Marxists on the left side of the spectrum. When you go beyond Marxists you enter the realm of the violent Anarchist.AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:58 pm
Libertarians have become all over the place depending on how much government they’re willing to tolerate, but are generally on the right side, and can become indistinguishable from the less-than-violent Anarchist.
One man’s opinion.
Like I said before, I understand where you’re coming from. This makes sense if you’re trying to force all views onto a spectrum. Also there just isn’t any relationship between some of the views on there.
While Anarchists and Nazis appear to be the opposite on your chart, I suspect their reasoning is much more similar than either of them are to a Republican.
There is a particularly confused political view that breaks your spectrum, which is that anarcho socialist, or collectivist anarchist idea (whatever the hell it’s called). It is an extreme version of socialism where everyone shares everything and helps eachother for no apparent reason. It’s stupid and impossible, like anarchism or communism separately, but I think it shows something central to both views.
The spectrum may please you for sorting ideas, but I don’t think it’s useful in any respect. Views that are completely incompatible wind up grouped together, and you wind up saying things that are wrong, such as ‘socialists can’t oppose government’.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:00 pm
“Good Lord. Yes, you can be socialist and oppose a government THAT ISN’T SOCIALIST.”
Yeah, I see what you’re saying, Dustin.
I’m just saying that you can’t be a socialist (as the word is usually used) and be anti-government period. Socialists can obviously be opposed to a specific cgovernment that’s not socialist enough.
So, I think we’re pretty much in agreement, and we were arguing past each other.
But, that still leaves the question I was asking unanswered.
If an anti-government militia (meaning they want less government or no government) is defined as right wing…well, so what. What does that mean?Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:05 pm
Dave Surls, you are redefining what Anarchism is about both factually and historically. Based as far as I can tell on total ignorance of the anarchist movements. The anarchist version of socialism was originally intended to replace national government – specifically capitalist govt – not all government.
It would obviously be a waste of time to further educate you on the topic.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:13 pm
“Dave Surls, you are redefining what Anarchism is”
No, I’m not. I’m using dictionary definitions of the word Anarchy and Anarchism.
“a : absence of government”
“c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government”
If you don’t like the dictionary definition, that’s o.k. by me. But, if you want to use another definition you have to tell me what it is, otherwise I don’t know what you mean.Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:32 pm
Didn’t think I’d find myself agreeing with Dave Surls on an entire string of comments… but I do, in this case. Whether or not our particular definitions of key terms have become societally distorted (as a consequence of consistent misuse) shouldn’t change the original definition of those words in our own minds. That’s power model stuff – saying that whatever a group of people say a word means is what it means. As far as I can tell, Dave Surls is (consistently) arguing an Originalist approach to these terms – socialism and anarchism and whatnot.
Dustin – when Dave Surls says “socialists can’t oppose government”, you know he means “true socialists can’t oppose the idea of government”. That seems perfectly accurate to me, based on the explanation he gave – despite the inconsistent whining of self-styled American “socialist” whiners who want to be able to drive a Lexus to their cushy academic job when that same car is assembled by a company that won’t allow the unionization of its workforce (if I’m not mistaken).
The terms “left-wing” and “right-wing” obviously denote some sort of relative spectrum (though the particular criterion for the spectrum can be debated), and these terms – socialist, anarchist, conservative and liberal (maybe less so) – do have set definitions. So it seems entirely appropriate to place those set definitions on the spectrum, because that’s why the spectrum is there. If the spectrum is “support/opposition to government”, it makes perfect sense to me that an anarchist can’t be a socialist, that a socialist can’t be opposed to the idea of government in general, and so on. To allow pop-culture bastardizations of these terms to affect our debate is to succumb to the influence of a worrisome (albeit pressing) trend.Leviticus (8c8307) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:51 pm
Excuse me, but he was saying i was wrong, and I had defined the terms government much more accurately. Socialists do oppose governments most of the the time, especially in America.
It’s simply not the case that socialists are always pro government, or pro more government even.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:53 pm
I’m merely pointing to the fact that being absolute about a political spectrum is foolish.
It’s also important to be a little more precise when someone is called ‘anti government’.
That guy who flew his plane into the IRS building was a socialist. Anyone who read his manifesto knows that. But he was also anti government. He wasn’t anti the concept of government, of course. Almost no one is. Certainly conservatives aren’t. Reagan wasn’t when he said government is the problem, not the solution. conflating the concepts is convenient, but it avoids truth.
socialists opposed bush’s government, and they oppose Obamas to great extent. Someone who is anti government in the US today could be an anarchist, but they probably aren’t. They probably are pro government, and also protesting this one.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 5:00 pm
‘when Dave Surls says “socialists can’t oppose government”, you know he means “true socialists can’t oppose the idea of government”.’
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say. I just didn’t do it well.
And, that only applies to that particular definition of socialism, anyway.
There’s also this definition of socialism…
“2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”
If you want to do that on a purely voluntary basis, man, more power to you. Hope your communal living thing works out. As long as you’re not trying to force me to be a part of your commune scene through the coercive power of government, then God bless you, and good luck.Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 5:25 pm
Being “absolute” about a political spectrum may indeed be foolish, but the shifting margin should be for the criterion of a particular spectrum, rather than a laissez-faire attitude towards words with set definitions. So a man may be an anarchist by one criterion, and a libertarian by another, but in either case we should be arguing about what that guy’s opposition to the idea of government makes him. Because that’s what an anarchist is. There are many feasible political spectrums, but the labels are more closely defined, and shouldn’t be bandied about as loosely. Like, Obama’s not a “socialist”, just because he advocates the expansion of government in some areas – he doesn’t support/advocate the popular control of the means of production, or the total control of every aspect of life and business by a government composed of an unelected government panel.Leviticus (fdeab9) — 1/11/2011 @ 5:45 pm
As with many things, the overuse of a term tends to cheapen it, and we’re bandying the word “socialist” about so much these days that a lot of people (neither of you guys, but a lot of young people especially) have no idea what it actually means.Leviticus (fdeab9) — 1/11/2011 @ 5:54 pm
SPQR and Daleyrocks, my point was that the right did use the Virginia Tech killings for political reasons. It wasn’t concealed carry; it was the fact that the rules of most colleges prohibit college students from carrying guns on campus.
Patterico, I forgot about that comment. Thanks for reminding me. If you don’t want me to continue to attempt to be a model of decorum, please let me know. I can change.
[There is a reason your comments are evaluated for review before they are published. I really don’t give a good goddamn whether you want to be a model of decorum or not. However, posts that cross the line, as you have gleefully done in the past, will not get published. So if anyone should care whether you conform to basic standards of decency, it is you.
I don’t care for myself, really, but someone who says shit like that about me might do it to someone else. So you get moderated.
I point it out mainly to illustrate the hi-larious contrast between the high-minded civil guy you pretend to be, and the lowlife you actually are. — P]Jim (8de501) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:10 pm
he doesn’t support/advocate the popular control of the means of production, or the total control of every aspect of life and business by a government composed of an unelected government panel.
then why has the govt taken major positions in the car industry, the financial industry, the health-care insurance industry, and is attempting to do so in the communications industry, manufacturing, and energy, either through outright control, or through regulatory imposition?
If you impose enough regulatory hurdles, you don’t have to announce an outright nationalization to take control of the means and methods of production.AD-RtR/OS! (17ff49) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:28 pm
guys, i think we have gotten mired in an academic point.Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:37 pm
“I ask you, are the gun blogs generally right wing or liberal? Is the anti-government militia movement in America generally right wing or liberal?”
I’m still trying to figure out what the point of this question is.
I guess the professor of guitarology (LOL!) is off doing whatever he does when he isn’t being a left wing halfwit.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:58 pm
I ask you, are the gun blogs generally right wing or liberal? Is the anti-government militia movement in America generally right wing or liberal?
1) I would guess that the gun blogs tend to be either conservative or libertarian.
2) I have no idea of the general leanings of “anti-government militia movements”.
Now a question in return, if I may. Loughner tagged a flag-burning video as a “favorite” so I think it’s relevant.
Are you more likely to see an American flagged by participants at a conservative/ libertarian event (such as the Tea Party), or at a liberal event (like ANSWER)?malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:08 pm
“If you impose enough regulatory hurdles, you don’t have to announce an outright nationalization to take control of the means and methods of production.”
You can also use the Nazi socialist method of establishing government economic control, which boils down to “Do what we say, or we’ll kill you”.
That works pretty well.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:25 pm
Dave, a dictionary is not a political science treatise.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:43 pm
And Patterico, why don’t you explain why my comment about you crossed the line? No bad words, no violence. You’re the one who is in favor of spirited civil discourse. [Continue this on another thread.]Jim (87e69d) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 am