A Conflict of Vision

Mark and Amazona and I had an off-blog conversation recently about how we have begun to distance ourselves from friends or acquaintances who inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.  For most of my adult life I rationalized keeping such friends by convincing myself that it was “only politics”; that we basically wanted the same things for ourselves and our descendants; we just disagreed with how to get there.

One of the things that the Obama presidency has accomplished is highlighting the stark contrast between Liberals and Conservatives, not just on issues and not just on their approach to problem solving, but on a fundamental conflict in our vision for the future.

The greatest and most obvious conflict of vision is about the basic role of the central government where one side believes the success of government is defined by how many people are helped by government and the other side which believes the success of government is defined by how few people need help from the government.

But the conflict is much deeper and broader than that.  It is a conflict between:

  • The fundamental transformation of America and the fundamental restoration of America.
  • The belief that some people can neither handle nor deserve freedom, and the belief that the yearning for freedom is an inherent part of the human spirit.
  • The belief that America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, and the belief that America is the source of most of the evil and misery in the world.
  • Doing what’s right all of the time, regardless of the consequences and doing what’s right only when doing so yields personal or political benefits.
  • Always telling the truth and ignoring the truth when it has negative political or personal consequences.
  • Voting for someone because you’re confident they will honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and voting for someone because you’re confident they will ignore or subvert the parts of the Constitution that you don’t like.
  • Case law and original interpretation.
  • Morality and moral relativism.
  • Learning from history and re-writing history to fit an agenda.
  • Dwelling on what’s good about America as opposed to dwelling on what’s bad about America.
  • The creation of wealth and the transfer of wealth.
  • Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
  • A dynamic view and a static view on just about everything.
  • Defining success as actually helping someone in need vs. defining success as feeling good because you tried to help someone.
  • Accountability and avoiding responsibility.
  • Humility and hubris.
  • Criticizing policies because they’re bad policies and being accused of being racist for criticizing policies because the policy maker is black.
  • Becoming a color-blind society and using race as a political weapon.
  • Lightly-regulated free market capitalism and crony capitalism with rewards for supporters and burdensome regulations on and harassment of any company that doesn’t support your policies.
  • Policy making based on polling and policy making based on sound scientific and economic principles.
  • Transparency and closed door, secret deals.
  • Increasing tax revenue and decreasing spending.
  • Economic justice and economic liberty.
  • Social justice and justice for all.
  • The individual and the collective.
  • Results vs. intentions.
  • Conservation and eco-imperialism.
  • Victory and exit strategy when applied to military conflict.
  • An educational system that teaches how to think vs. what to think.
  • “Our plan didn’t work because we didn’t spend enough money”, and “your plan didn’t work because it was an unworkable plan.”
  • Eliminating incentive and fostering dependency vs. entrepreneurship and self-reliance.
  • Voting based on issues and voting based on the best way to govern.
  • Liberty and tyranny.
  • And ,ultimately, between the survival of the human race vs. the here and now.

So I ask my former friends and acquaintances on the Left — common ground?  What common ground?  We are in a fight for the soul of the greatest nation in the history of the world, and our conflict of vision for the future is so profound that I will, without hesitation, lay down my life to ensure that my descendants are not forced to live under your vision.

 

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “A Conflict of Vision

  1. Amazona April 25, 2014 / 5:18 pm

    My role in this conversation, aside from agreeing that the divide is so wide now it constitutes a national emergency, is that I don’t think most who vote Dem give the slightest thought to more than a couple of the points Spook makes, if that many.

    The Libs I encounter are truly, deeply and profoundly clueless, without the slightest recognition of the elements laid out so eloquently by Spook. My experience has been that if I could get a Lib to get past his knee-jerk automatic so-deeply-ingrained-it-is-like-breathing antipathy to what is perceived as the Right, to get to a specific question, the answer has nearly always sounded like one I would get from a Conservative.

    The problem has always been in getting past the firewall of preconceived, and false, notions.

    Here is my speculation about some answers you would get from a sincere, passionately Dem voter:

    * The fundamental transformation of America and the fundamental restoration of America.

    The fundamental transformation of America would not be seen as anything more than some nifty changes in attitude, meaning less racism, more nice people, less poverty, no hungry children, etc. I have yet to hear a Lib define this term as the deconstruction of our historical Constitutional system and replacing it with the same system that defined the miseries of the USSR. Without an understanding of why America was constructed the way she was, why she worked when governed that way, the rest is just mouth sounds with no real context and therefore no real meaning.

    * The belief that some people can neither handle nor deserve freedom, and the belief that the yearning for freedom is an inherent part of the human spirit.

    I haven’t had this conversation with anyone, but I think if challenged few would admit to believing that some people can’t handle freedom. I think the whole concept of freedom has been for the most part simply not pondered.

    * The belief that America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, and the belief that America is the source of most of the evil and misery in the world.

    I think most Dems believe in the first concept, when they think about it, but they can get caught up in passionate rhetoric which carries them along on negative thought currents. I truly believe that most of them, if in a serious discussion about this, would point to some things we have done wrong but would not dismiss us as evil.

    * Doing what’s right all of the time, regardless of the consequences and doing what’s right only when doing so yields personal or political benefits.

    Now we are in the area of perception, the area where the propaganda machine excels at convincing the gullible that what the Left is doing is simply not wrong. I know it doesn’t make sense to people who think like we do, but when I try to talk about this I run into the wall of belief that what the Left does is simply OK. It’s the few times there is a crack in this belief that the whole support for the Left’s issues starts to fall apart. With me, it was the refusal to apply the same standards of treatment of women to the women abused by Clinton. I think, by the way, that this is the arena in which we are going to have the most success, because I think most people have a strong sense of fairness even when they are clueless about what is going on. I think we as a nation have reached, or nearly reached, the tipping point where the truly fair-minded have to see what is going on; the selective application of some laws to some people based on skin color, religion, cronyism, money or other superficial characteristics. If there is any quality of the American character I think it is an underlying belief in fairness, and the Left’s hubris in seeing the last two elections as mandates for their ideology instead of just blindness to their lies is leading them to push hard enough to reach that tipping point earlier than I expected.

    * Always telling the truth and ignoring the truth when it has negative political or personal consequences.

    See above…..

    * Voting for someone because you’re confident they will honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and voting for someone because you’re confident they will ignore or subvert the parts of the Constitution that you don’t like.

    I just don’t think there is that much analysis of what the Left does, regarding subversion of the Constitution. We use phrases, such as “legislating from the bench” and so on, but we drop it there, and let the Left define our terms, and most people just don’t know what this means. This is an area where few, I think, truly feel the Constitution should be ignored or subverted—they just don’t understand it. Ignorance, yes. Laziness, yes. But not usually malignance.

    And so on, through your list.

    Although I agree with every single thing you point out as a difference between the average voter for the Right and the Dem voter, I think the simply, ugly truth is that the average Dem voter doesn’t even realize he IS voting for the Left, doesn’t know what “Left” means, and is almost drugged by the constant, nonstop, onslaught of propaganda since school years. I am not excusing this, but I am trying to understand it.

    As I said the other day when hiring a consultant to do an audit of our DOT files to see if we are in compliance, before the DOT takes a look at us, “You don’t know what you don’t know if you don’t know you don’t know it”. These people don’t realize they don’t know. They operate off emotional reactions to carefully planted emotional cues, and their reactions make them feel good about themselves. They are then vulnerable to the trap of “If I hate the thought of children being hungry and like Plan A to address it, and Spook doesn’t agree with Plan A, that means Spook is indifferent to the suffering of hungry children”. That leads to “Spook is a Republican, and other Republicans also argue that Plan A is a bad plan, so obviously Republicans are hard-hearted selfish bastids” and soon it is “I won’t listen to anything any Republican/Conservative says because they are all greedy and dishonest”. It is a snowball with a tiny core of mistaken assumption, which could be corrected at that level if addressed, which picks up so much additional mass in so many layers as it rolls down the hill, it is eventually impenetrable.

    I don’t see the problem as one of fighting deeply held diametrically opposite philosophical beliefs so much as chipping away at the shell of assumptions. The danger lies in us doing what the other side does—in seeing an action, such as supporting welfare, as indifference to

    I remain optimistic, though I am starting to consider pessimism—though I doubt it would work.

  2. Cluster April 25, 2014 / 7:37 pm

    one side believes the success of government is defined by how many people are helped by government and the other side which believes the success of government is defined by how few people need help from the government.

    That’s actually an excellent summary of the divide right there.

    I agree with Amazona in that I think most people who vote for Democrats do so as a result of media propaganda and without really thinking through the issues. Case in point is my daughter who was caught up in the Obama hype in 2009, but has since educated herself quite a bit, and is now very much disgusted with the misinformation, policies and results of this Regime.

  3. M. Noonan April 25, 2014 / 8:44 pm

    There certainly isn’t much to go on – even the two liberals on the ‘net whom I can still tolerate because they are invariably polite still make me cringe at times with their obtuseness. The most recent battle was over the Cliven Bundy issue – my point always has been not about Bundy (who appeared to me, from the get-go, as a bit of a loon) but the fact that while government owns the land, you’ll get corrupt land deals involving politicians and their juiced-in cronies (of whatever stripe). The liberals initial point of view was “IT’S THE LAW!!!!” – meaning, Bundy had broken what the federal government defined as “the law” and thus he had to knuckle under…when anyone pointed out that illegals had also broken the law and yet liberals were unwilling to make them knuckle under, all I got was silence. Then when Bundy made his idiotic statement about African-Americans, all the liberals will say of him is that he’s racist and thus we are all racist unless we now come around to agreeing that “IT’S THE LAW” and Bundy has to knuckle under. In neither instance was there any attempt to discuss the actual issue raised by Bundy.

    Recently I’ve read some interesting articles on the way the left thinks – in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali case, Brandeis dis-invited her to speak, bottom line, because the feminist in the faculty were upset that her concentration on actual violation of women’s rights demonstrates that the bullstuff issues American and western feminists bring up is, just that – utter nonsense. Trivia harped upon by neurotics. We are to agonize over “rape culture”, not the actual rapes of genuine women by beasts in human skin…because a college feminist lacks the courage to do anything to defend actual oppressed women but does very much want to be lauded as a person who fights for the oppressed. In another case, we have the argument over “income inequality” and if you really look at what is going on, a very rich segment of the American population wants to confiscate the wealth of the extremely rich because the very rich are jealous that they can’t have as much as the extremely rich. Its a matter of a $2 million a year news anchor burning with indignation that someone who makes useful products pulls down $20 million a year…the new anchor believes himself/herself to be top of the top and yet income distribution doesn’t reflect their world view…and so those at the very top are to be pulled down. Not to pull up the middle and the lower (all rational analysis shows that confiscatory taxation and income redistribution will actually make the poor and middle class poorer), but to pull down the super rich so that our rich ruling class can have a world where they are in fact as well as theory the top of the heap.

    As for our rank-and-file liberals, they just refuse to see it. Once again referencing one of those two liberal ‘net friends, another argument the other day had to do with a claim that spending was cut for a certain agency of government. I pointed out that the spending hadn’t actually been cut. He rejoined that of course it hadn’t – but it had been directed into places where it benefited crony-capitalists and thus wasn’t being spent on what it should be spent on. I naturally pointed out that this is what will always happen when you have Big Government – whomever can grease the wheels of Big Government (and this will usually be Big Corporation or some other well-heeled entity/person) will get the lion’s share of government largesse. Our liberal simply would not or could not comprehend this, and so didn’t respond to my observation…but I’ll bet dollars to donuts in a short while he’ll be out showing some lack of activity in government and will demand more taxes to fund more spending…never putting two and two together and realizing that even if we did that, the money still won’t go to the desired end because the desired end (say, better policing of our neighborhoods) doesn’t benefit anyone in government or corporation. Nearly every red cent of government is already going precisely where government and cronies want it to go – and if anyone other than government and cronies gets anything, it is merely incidental and, in a sense, accidental…and will likely be cut and re-directed elsewhere in the by and by (you might have heard stories about the VA not taking care of the veterans – an entity of government who’s sole purpose of existence is to serve veterans isn’t spending the money which is actually available on servicing the veterans…that should open even the densest liberal’s eyes…but it won’t; he’ll just demand more taxes and spending – and maybe another layer of bureaucrats to audit the bureaucrats we’ve already got).

    The bottom line of all this is that one side or the other must prevail entirely. Liberalism must be entirely forced out of the ability to affect policy or conservatism must be. Oil and water cannot mix. Right now, liberals feel that they’ve got the wind at their backs and maybe they do – we’ll see. But if we do get back into power, we must root out liberalism completely; it can be done, mostly by cutting government spending (liberalism is only a viable political force because of government subsidy, and we’ve been subsidizing it since the 1930’s).

  4. 02casper April 25, 2014 / 9:13 pm

    My take on the first part of Spook’s list

    The fundamental transformation of America and the fundamental restoration of America.

    The country is changing whether you like it or not and what would you restore it to?

    The belief that some people can neither handle nor deserve freedom, and the belief that the yearning for freedom is an inherent part of the human spirit.

    I believe in the the second one.

    The belief that America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, and the belief that America is the source of most of the evil and misery in the world.

    I believe that America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity, but I also realize it’s far from perfect.

    Doing what’s right all of the time, regardless of the consequences and doing what’s right only when doing so yields personal or political benefits.
    Always telling the truth and ignoring the truth when it has negative political or personal consequences.

    Two things I’ve always believed in

    Voting for someone because you’re confident they will honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and voting for someone because you’re confident they will ignore or subvert the parts of the Constitution that you don’t like.

    I don’t know of anyone who has ever voted for someone they think will subvert the Constitution.

    Case law and original interpretation.

    Who’s original interpretation?

    Morality and moral relativism.

    I’ve always been for morality.

    Learning from history and re-writing history to fit an agenda.

    I think both sides sometimes try to rewrite history, although I think your side is much better at it.

    Dwelling on what’s good about America as opposed to dwelling on what’s bad about America.

    I like to dwell on the good. This blog seems to dwell on the bad.

    Seems we agree on a number of points and disagree on others. Funny, I haven’t felt the need to push any of my conservative friends away, nor have they stopped talking to me.

    • Retired Spook April 25, 2014 / 10:45 pm

      Who’s original interpretation?

      Let’s say, Casper, that you and I play poker and we agree to abide by the rules according to Hoyle. Original interpretation would be the rules as they are actually written. Case law has resulted in a constant pushing of the legal envelope, if you will, a subversion of the Constitution via precedent, where each new precedent changes the law ever so slightly, until, after 100 years, the original meaning is almost unrecognizable.

      I don’t know of anyone who has ever voted for someone they think will subvert the Constitution.

      I suppose it’s possible that you’re naive enough to have voted for Obama thinking that he would honor his oath. If so, I’m betting that puts you in the minority of people who voted for him.

      • 02casper April 25, 2014 / 11:14 pm

        “Let’s say, Casper, that you and I play poker and we agree to abide by the rules according to Hoyle. Original interpretation would be the rules as they are actually written. ”

        Except the rules of poker have changed over time, just as our country has. It originally was played with 20 cards.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker

        “I suppose it’s possible that you’re naive enough to have voted for Obama thinking that he would honor his oath. If so, I’m betting that puts you in the minority of people who voted for him.”

        I doubt there are many people if any that thought Obama wouldn’t honor his oath and to be honest, I haven’t seen anything presented by the right that he didn’t.

      • Cluster April 26, 2014 / 8:52 am

        Liberal Constitutional Law Professor, and Obama supporter, Jonathan Turley disagrees with you:

        Nationally acclaimed constitutional scholar Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School is the second-most cited law professor in the country. Testifying before a House Judiciary Committee looking into whether the president is faithfully executing the law, Turley flatly stated, “We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government.”

        Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-constitutional-crisis/#9Xw8roESpcDea5bw.99

      • M. Noonan April 26, 2014 / 4:12 pm

        Clearly, Turley is just a racist…

      • Retired Spook April 26, 2014 / 8:57 am

        Except the rules of poker have changed over time, just as our country has. It originally was played with 20 cards.

        OK, maybe poker wasn’t the best example. The point I was trying to make was about the rules, not the game. The rules our Founders set up to govern this nation allowed for organized changes, and I don’t think anyone has a problem with the amendment process other than Progressives who decided it wasn’t easy or quick enough. Voila — under Woodrow Wilson constitutional questions began to be settled by case law and and expanding legal precedent. That’s still a major difference today between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives generally like rules — Liberals don’t. Rules provide structure, stability and cohesiveness and stand in the way of doing something in the moment that hasn’t been well thought out — an accurate description of many, if not most liberal ideas if I ever heard one.

      • Retired Spook April 26, 2014 / 9:08 am

        I doubt there are many people if any that thought Obama wouldn’t honor his oath and to be honest, I haven’t seen anything presented by the right that he didn’t.

        Casper,

        Are you saying you didn’t think Obama would violate his oath and you don’t believe he has, or are you acknowledging that he has, but you didn’t think he would when you voted for him? And, as Cluster note, the most damning condemnation of his violations hasn’t come from the Right, it’s come from the Left.

      • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:20 am

        “…we agree to abide by the rules according to Hoyle. Original interpretation would be the rules as they are actually written.”

        As they ARE written. Not as they were in a different game that was the origin of this one. This game. According to these rules. In a rule book, written by Hoyle.

        As usual, you are skittering around, jumping from one thing to another like a flea on a hot skillet. And, as usual, you are wrong.

        I do not believe you are as dense as you act. Not that I don’t believe you are dense, but I have also seen you put on this coy little chins-ducking act of pretending that you do not understand what is being said.

        Take this, for example: “The country is changing whether you like it or not and what would you restore it to?”

        Aside from the fact that this is a vague generalization which does absolutely nothing to address the stated intent of a man, representing an ideology, to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM the nation, this just glides over the definition of “fundamental”.

        Of course the nation is changing. Duh. Why the compulsion to stick in the snarky “whether you like it or not”? We could do months on the various ways the nation is changing. We could start with cow paths and move on through the development of an organized road system, the introduction of paved roads, the evolution of traffic control (lots and lots to dwell on, regarding stop signs and traffic lights and the Barnes Walk) and traffic laws ——-Hey! They didn’t used to have laws against going 60 MPH!!!!!!—–and the interstate system, and so on. Ditto for dress, language, cultural changes, etc. We’ve moved the nation’s capital, changed the names of political parties, gotten YouTube. If you want to argue that these are “fundamental” changes in the country, I am sure you can, at great and silly length.

        But I think even you understand that we are talking about the true foundation of this country, which is the vision held by our Founders for the best possible form of government and its codification into a document, a constitution, which —when followed—-made it possible for this raw new nation of contentious and often opposing points of view on many things to form a unified identity and country that quickly leapfrogged over every established civilization in the world to set a new standard of personal liberty and economic prosperity. It is this character, this understanding and acceptance of and allegiance to the actual Constitution of the United States, that made this possible.

        And what has happened is that this character has been fundamentally changed. You can smirk “whether you like it or not” all you want, but the fact is, millions of us do NOT like this. You seem to. This is the primary difference between us.

        And when you support this kind of change, which is dependent upon ignoring, undermining or subverting this Constitution, you cannot honestly say that you also, at the same time, “Doing what’s right all of the time, regardless of the consequences and doing what’s right only when doing so yields personal or political benefits”. Because if you truly believe in doing what is right, regardless of the consequences, you have to believe that following the Constitution is necessary even when the “consequences” are that you don’t get what you want, such as redistribution of other peoples’ wealth or other things that have such emotional appeal to you.

        No one is going to come right out and admit that he only does the right thing when it benefits him personally or politically, just as few are going to admit their actual goal is to subvert the Constitution. So when we run up against the conflict between how people want to see themselves—honest, upright, believing in doing what is right even when it is hard, being “for morality”—-and their actions, which are the opposite, we have to see these people as either liars, or delusional.

        What people like you do is, for example, support the subversion of the Constitution while paying lip service to it, so you don’t have to take responsibility for the damage done. So you for people like Obama who openly state their intention to do whatever they want to do whether it is in the Constitution, or legislated law, or not, and then piously proclaiming dedication to the rule of law and to morality and honesty, blah blah blah. You think you can have it both ways. But you can’t.

        You might be able to look in the mirror and pretend that the guy looking back at you is really walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, but I think that deep down even you, and people like you, realize that it is a lie. You know perfectly well that you think the Constitution is not settled law, but that it should be “interpreted” according to the whim of the day. This is evident whenever you try to qualify your support for the Constitution, with inane queries such as “Who’s (sic) interpretation”. (And in passing, the fact that a TEACHER, of your extensive experience and alleged knowledge, still does not know that “who’s” is a contraction of the phrase “who is” and not a possessive pronoun is stunning, in a profoundly depressing way.) This refusal to commit to the wording of the Constitution, and to constantly try to tap dance around it with excuses about the changing nature of the nation, bickering about “interpretation” and so on IS moral relativism. Morality lies, among other characteristics, in following the law. Making excuses for not following the law is relativism—“Well, yeah, they said this, but times are different now…”

      • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:31 am

        “I doubt there are many people if any that thought Obama wouldn’t honor his oath…”

        Well, doubt away. Nearly half of those who voted in 2008 thought Obama would not honor his oath of office. And when this was proved, during his first four years, that he would not and did not, people like you voted to bring him back. This is what we find unforgivable. The first time around, we could write it off to possibly genuine good intentions, but the second time is flat-out inexcusable, and it is you and your kind who bear the full responsibility for the damage done to this nation in Obama’s second term.

        “…..and to be honest, I haven’t seen anything presented by the right that he didn’t.”

        Note the coy parsing of words here. casper does not even try to claim he is unaware of the many blatant violations of Obama’s oath of office, so he coyly qualifies his pretense of ignorance by saying he hasn’t seen anything presented BY THE RIGHT… “that he didn’t”. If called on this, all he has to do is put on that silly casper smirk and say “but I learned about his refusal to follow the law on the Jon Stewart show, not from the Right, tee hee.”

    • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:24 am

      “I think both sides sometimes try to rewrite history, although I think your side is much better at it.”

      This is a typical casper snarl, as well as a dive into that relativity we were talking about. Even casper can’t deny that the Left rewrites history, but he has to try to make that less offensive, so he just declares that, well, so does The Other Side—-and then throw in the comment that this Other Side “is better at it”.

      Really? What history has been rewritten by the American Right?

      Oh, that’s right—-there are no examples of this, which, in LeftThink, is just proof that they are “better at it” because they have done it so well no one can find an example!

    • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:39 am

      ” Funny, I haven’t felt the need to push any of my conservative friends away, nor have they stopped talking to me.”

      Of course you have not “pushed away” any of your conservative friends. You probably have the same disdain for their beliefs and convictions you have for ours here, but you can hardly afford to “push away” anyone who will tolerate you.

      As for your claim that they have not stopped talking to you——do you express your views on the Constitution to them the way you do here? Do you make the same arguments in support of radical Leftist governance when you talk to them that you do here? Have you told them that you have contempt for what you seem to think is “conservatism” and believe their side is inherently dishonest and rewrites history?

      No, I am sure that what you call “friendship” with these people is purely social, and dependent on the avoidance of exposing your true feelings to them—-and quite possibly vice versa.

      And let’s face it—you have proved here, on this blog, that you are oblivious to signs of lack of respect unless and until they reach the point of bluntness that even you can’t ignore. (And even then you keep coming back….)

      • tiredoflibbs April 27, 2014 / 6:29 am

        “As for your claim that they have not stopped talking to you——do you express your views on the Constitution to them the way you do here? ”

        AMA, cappy presents himself differently here than he does at the lefty blog he visits. He will talk badly about us on that blog and then stick to claims of civility here.

        He is a two-faced individual. If he does it here, then for sure his “conservative friends” (if they exist at all -sometimes it seems cappy lives in his own little world) have no clue as to his real beliefs.

      • Amazona April 27, 2014 / 9:48 am

        I can promise you that casper keeps his wackadoo pseudo-political opinions and his innate viciousness carefully hidden, and that his conservative “friends” have such superficial relationships with him that they never discuss the things that bring out his true nasty nature.

        casper’s two-faced weaselness is well known here. He has what he thinks is a convincing persona of generosity and good will and thoughtfulness, but his true self oozes through, and underneath is just a whole bunch of nasty, dumped in a skin sack that doesn’t have a backbone.

        He may or not be a competent enough teacher to be able to get basics across to the poor kids sentenced to his classes, but from what I have seen of him he is simply incapable of teaching something like the Constitution without sneaking in his deep-seated hostility to the country and its rule of law.

        I’ve never been able to relate to seething resentment bordering on, if not crossing over into, outright hatred, but this is not only the one thing all these radical Lefties have in common, it is what draws them to the Left. They do not move to the Left because they have studied history and have developed objective beliefs that collectivism is a better way to run the nation. As a matter of fact, they are either determinedly ignorant of the actual political SYSTEM they are supporting, or they kind of know a little bit about it but understand it is indefensible so they steadfastly avoid talking about it. No, what attracts them is the clever way the radical Left has recognized this pathology and structured a mock political system which has nothing to do with governance but which validates things normal society scorns, or at least recognizes as wrong—–freeform rage that needs a target, seething hostility to other people that needs a target, a desperate need to feel superior in spite of never doing anything to earn it, pleasure in attacking and ridiculing others. The Left says to these people “Not only are all these things wonderful ways to think and feel, they make you special, and the more you indulge in them by savaging the targets we give you, the more special you will be”. The Left recognizes the innate bigotry in these people and tells them “What you hate should be hated. We will give you a list of acceptable, even noble, bigotries, mostly centered on people who simply disagree with you on something, and we will give you a list of bigotries you not only cannot have but must assign to people in the first group” and the haters are happy. They have sanctioned hate of target groups and identities, and they never even see the hypocrisy in wallowing in their own bigotries because they are so busy assigning other bigotries to their targets—–racism, homophobia, sexism etc.

    • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:50 am

      Spook, your poker example was just fine. There are written rules for every form of poker, and when you sit down to play a game you are expected to play by those rules. Just try telling someone that his flush doesn’t count because in another time, in another version of a card game similar to this one, there was no such thing.

      The thing is, when the rules of a game like poker are changed, the rules are codified either in written amendments to the old rules or in a whole new set of rules. They are not deemed to be infinitely flexible, subject to change depending on who is holding what cards at any given time, or on “changes” in the surroundings.

      When Obamacare was raising its ugly head after the 2008 election I was talking to someone about selling my house in the mountains. He (a Lib) wanted to know how much I wanted for it, and I told him he would have to sign a contract to buy it before I would tell him. He was genuinely confused, so I explained that the way this whole sale would work would be that he would accept my description of the house without looking at it, sign a formal binding contract to buy it, and then I would tell him how much he was going to have to pay for it. He said that was crazy and I just shrugged and said “If that’s good enough for the whole country, regarding Obamacare, it ought to be good enough for everyone who voted for him when it comes to anything else.” (Today I would have to add that in spite of this binding written contract, I could still change the terms as I went along. He couldn’t, but I could.)

  5. tiredoflibbs April 26, 2014 / 7:20 am

    “I haven’t seen anything presented by the right that he didn’t.”

    Either cappy is being purposefully ignorant or he hasn’t been paying attention. On this blog alone, it has been shown that he has violated his oath.

    Cappy, whT you need is to stay away from your progressive “news sources”. They are circling the wagons to protect this president. Just recently, the hardest question they as him on his trip to Japan is”did you like your green tea ice cream?”

    Nobody on the left is going to ask him about his failure to enorce any laws he does not agree with – there the rules haven’t changed. Your insistence on the “country has changed” is mob rule – the opinions have changed but the laws and rules haven’t. It is not for him or you to decide what laws are to be enforced and which ones aren’t.

  6. Cluster April 26, 2014 / 9:31 am

    Speaking of a conflict of vision. Obama’s State Dept is now conducting foreign policy on Twitter – the foliowing from State Dept. Spokesperson Jen Psaki:

    The world stands #UnitedforUkraine. Let’s hope that the #Kremlin & @mfa_russia will live by the promise of hashtag

    I am sure Putin has a restless night.

    • Amazona April 26, 2014 / 9:57 am

      Maybe it’s time for Obama to bring in his big guns, and send Beyonce and Jay-Z over as the new co-ambassadors. After appointing Miley Cyrus as an official White House spokestwerker, that is. I understand the latest threat to Russia involves a YouTube video of John F’n Kerry demonstrating what the United States is going to do to Putin and Russia if they keep laughing at us——it seems to involve spanking a stuffed bear wearing a hat with a red star on it with a ping-pong paddle and then making it sit in a corner on a chair labeled “RESET”.

      • Retired Spook April 26, 2014 / 10:21 am

        it seems to involve spanking a stuffed bear wearing a hat with a red star on it with a ping-pong paddle and then making it sit in a corner on a chair labeled “RESET”.

        ROTFLMAO!!!

  7. Amazona April 28, 2014 / 9:04 pm

    Here is an excellent article that touches on another conflict of visions—-that of “Do As I Say And Not As I Do” or the New Aristocracy promoted by today’s Progressives. From the article by Jim Geraghty: emphasis mine

    “The evidence before us suggests progressives’ ideal society would be one where they enjoy great power to regulate the lives of others and impose restrictions and limitations they themselves would never accept in their own lives. Very few people object to an aristocracy with special rights and privileges as long as they’re in it.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374779/progressive-aristocracy-jim-geraghty/page/0/1

  8. Amazona April 29, 2014 / 10:34 am

    Another entry in a sub-category of Spook’s thread, Conflict of Beliefs: From the National Review. (emphasis mine)

    ADDENDA: Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary, host of Fox News’ “The Five” and friend of the Morning Jolt, profiles orphan-who-over-came-adversity, successful-businessman, city-councilman, openly-gay GOP congressional candidate Carl DeMaio of San Diego:

    An anonymous left-wing group funded a SuperPac and sent mailers of DeMaio Photoshopped next to a drag queen to neighborhoods with a majority of elderly and African-American voters, knowing that such a photo would depress support for DeMaio.

    The Left will be openly homophobic when it suits their purposes. They have no principles other than winning.

    A friend who lives in San Diego recently emailed me about the smears against DeMaio from the Left, regarding his sexual orientation.

    • Cluster April 29, 2014 / 10:56 am

      They have no principles other than winning.

      And we had better realize this and fight fire with fire. Romney was too nice and mannered to go against the progressive attack machine. Ben Shapiro said it best:

      Here’s what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said about Barack Obama: Barack Obama is not a very good President. He said Barack Obama doesn’t do a very good job on the economy; he said that Obama’s foreign policy has a lot of holes in it; he said Obama has done a pretty poor job across the board of working in bipartisan fashion. But, Romney added, Obama’s a good guy. He’s a good family man, a good husband, a man who believes in the basic principles espoused by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is not someone you should be afraid of in any way. Essentially, Romney’s campaign slogan was this: “Obama: Good Guy, Bad President.”

      And here’s what Barack Obama and his sur- rogates said about Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney is the worst guy since Mussolini. Mitt Romney is the guy who straps dogs to the top of cars. Mitt Romney is the kind of guy who wants to “put y’all back in chains.” Mitt Romney is leading a “war on women” and, in fact, has compiled a binder full of women that he can then use to prosecute his war. Mitt Romney is the type of guy who would specifically fire an employee so that five years later his wife would die of cancer thanks to lack of health insurance. Mitt Romney would take his money and put it in an overseas bank account specifically to deprive the American people of money. The Obama campaign slogan: “Romney: Rich, Sexist, Racist Jackass.”

Comments are closed.