The Liberals’ Intellectually Baseless Ideology

George Rebane

An ideology is a structured and communicable belief system that in its best expression is composed of tenets defendable by reason.

I have always wondered why the Left appears to have no intellectual roots or basis for its scattered ideology.  The Right has its social philosophers in people like Locke, Bastiat, von Mises, von Hayek, and Friedman among others, and frequently cites their ideas and writings.

The post-WW2 Left denies any apparent intellectual roots, especially since the embarrassment of Soviet communism which they so admired in the 1920s and 30s.  Now they propose a scattering of collectivist notions and social policies that have no grounding in history, and even less in what is known about human behavior.  In short, the banners it marches under are bare of anything save the pitiful slogans that signal some particular shortages their constituents have yet to receive from the bountiful state.

But in the ideological landscape the thinning of intellectual roots is already detectable when the student enters the so-called independent or middle-of-the-road region of social thought.  People populating this region lack the ability to list, let alone define, any of the ideological tenets that inform and motivate the middle.  They also have no intellectual basis for what is clearly a faux political philosophy that panders to those who somehow want to distance themselves from ‘the extremist ideologues’.

In doing this they also distance themselves from any ability to tell people what they believe in.  Instead, they just repeat their desire to stand away from ‘the extremes’ of political thought, and consider this desire to be a sufficient belief system in which rejection substitutes for definition.  Moreover, the rejected extremes are apparently inaccessible to them, since in their declarations they never seem to get any of these disavowed tenets right.  For example, while they glibly join the Left in assigning someone to the ‘hard’ or ‘extreme Right’, they can offer no argument as to what specific conservative tenets confine a person to that ideological bookend.  Understandably, they are even more disabled in their attempts to characterize the Left for reasons considered below. 

Therefore, the self-declared middle-roaders are truly muddled in an ideological Never-never Land.  For confirmation, all you have to do is to go to the website of any avowed independent, and try to come out with a list of tenets that is coherent and unique to that part of the political spectrum.  It has yet to be done.

Having established the above, I was introduced by a reader to the thought of Professor Beverly Gage of Yale.  Historian Gage is a talented leftwing academic whose “teaching and research focus on the evolution of American political ideologies and institutions.”  To my delight, she turns out to be a kindred spirit in her assessment of the intellectual wasteland that today serves for liberal thought.

Her recent essay ‘Why Is There No Liberal Ayn Rand?’ (on Slate.com and my annotated pdf) is definitely worth a read.  This is an excellent apology for the difference between how the Right and the Left approach and argue their worldviews on Man, governance, and public policy.  She correctly delineates the liberal approach of framing and executing their efforts in terms of “issue-oriented activism” that is essentially free of any philosophical base, and appeals directly to the emotional perception of violated social justice.  It is a mode of conduct and communication that has been more than sufficient to their unread and pre-educated constituencies.

Of course, Dr Gage does not characterize the Left in such stark terms.  Instead, she sees the Left as the mass of people yearning for a better future, and who want to go forward into that future.  (It is not a coincidence that President Obama’s campaign slogan has been reduced to the simplest imperative – ‘Forward.’)  She summarizes the seminal difference between the Right and the Left in the “old political truism” of the progressives – “Liberals look to the future, while conservatives look to the past.”

This mythical 'truism' is exactly the obverse of what we have experienced within the frame of post-WW2 history.  It is the Left that has hewn and continues to hew to the demonstrably failed policies of collectivism, of reintroducing the systematic removal of individual liberties with the promise that this time an altruistic society will emerge that works.  To the extent that the Right has embraced modestly regulated, free-market capitalism, only it has provided the social environments which have given rise to the economic, technological, and socio-political advances that have increased the quality of life worldwide.

End Notes.  An important corollary to today’s intellectual wasteland that represents liberal ideology is its contribution to an almost total block to informative conversations between the two sides.  The utter futility of reasonable dialogue has been well documented on RR and countless other blogs, media websites, and broadcast talk programs.  To be sure, there are occasional glimmers of light, but these are quickly extinguished when it is required to go deeper where actual public policies can be fashioned.

My correspondents have correctly surmised that this disconnect is a factor that powers the discussion of the Great Divide as the simplest peaceful resolution to our governments becoming more dysfunctional with every passing month.  As long argued here, living harmoniously together requires some minimal level of like-mindedness.  Such minimums are no longer recognized, with one side working to replace them with government diktats, common to no one and lethally enforced.

The conservetarian in me sees such mandated solutions as large scale thuggery imposed by the state.  My response is to continue arguing for exploring and implementing the provisions in our Constitution that anticipated the United States becoming a laboratory of freedom and self-governance, where divers experiments would constantly be underway trying different approaches.  The Founders gave us the notion of states’ rights to carry out such experiments.

However, starting with the War Between the States, our federal government embarked on an insidious road to collective homogeneity.  At the turn of the last century, the road became well lit by its distinctive ideology, as classical liberalism gave way to modern leftwing liberalism.  As covered in these pages and supported by Professor Gage, this shift had well-formed intellectual roots in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Dewey, DuBois, … .

Additionally, the collectivist ideologies had established working models that were in practice in and launched by the Soviet Union.  By mid-century the exemplars of these polar ideologies were visible to all who would see.  And as Gage also corroborates, after the 1950s it became painfully clear to the socialists in free countries that their goals could not be achieved on the basis of reasoned argument of their tenets.  Their “movement culture” was abandoned, and the way ‘Forward.’ to a socialist future could only be accomplished through the opportunistic subterfuge of ad hoc "issue-oriented activism".  This removed the last viable tools for productive debate, and left propagandists alone on the public stage.

Comments

[TomKenworth]

Graphically attuned response.

[Paul Emery]

George, Let's look at some details George and see what we come up with.
Let's discuss personhood. The conservatives believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Does that mean that manufactures and distributors of morning after pills should be charged with accessory to murder. Yes or no will do.

Here's a take on the Romney-Ryan position.

"Paul Ryan's cultivated image is cheerful, smiling, outwardly the sort of person one might wish for as a neighbor; but his policies are deadly dangerous.

He is, for example, co-sponsor of the anti-woman legislation H.R. 212: the "Sanctity of Human Life Act", which gives "all the legal and constitutional attributes of personhood" -- to fertilized eggs.

Let us be specific here: a married woman may shed a fertilized egg as part of her monthly cycle. Essentially invisible, this non-implanted embryo passes from the body in a liquid state, and is disposed of; hardly worthy of polite conversation -- until now, when the contents of a sanitary napkin may be the focus of law.

Where does Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stand on this issue? Let us recall that he pledged to "absolutely" support a Constitutional amendment to impose personhood on the nation.

Enacted into law, a Romney/Ryan personhood plan could remove women's reproductive rights completely. It would ban abortion at any stage, block the In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedure that presently helps so many couples achieve parenthood, end the embryonic stem cell research which offers the hope of cure to my paralyzed son -- and criminalize birth control pills."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed/paul-ryan-personhood_b_1788514.html

[TomKenworth]

Taxpayers in Italy are fleeing to farther shores, possibly even California.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=158421073&m=159083832

[Account Deleted]

George posts an argument about the difficulty in having a reasoned give and take with libs. Paul and Doug jump right in with 2 perfect examples of what George was talking about. Douglas starts right off with a made up scenario. Reality doesn't fit his view of the world, so he makes up nonsense. Paul fires off a reply that has nothing directly to do with what George posted, but if you have no counter to a good argument, start a new topic. "Does that mean that manufactures and distributors of morning after pills should be charged with accessory to murder." (sic) What statute of law would one charge them with, Paul? We have (have had, at least) a concept of not filing criminal charges ex post facto. Goes along with those pesky views that conservatives have about playing by established rules.

[Earl Crabb]

Speaking for myself as an independent, I agree with the left that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. No one should be discriminated against because of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Judge people by their actions as individuals. That's my idea of social justice.
I agree with the right that government is too intrusive in our lives and costs too much. The closer the government is to the governed, the better.
My problem with Republicans and Democrats is that they are only half-right, and both seem to need enemies on the half they don't agree with.
It's pretty simple to this simpleton, and without getting all academic I would say it passes for common sense. I may not win any elections but I prefer my muddled middle, thank you.

[George Rebane]

ScottO 508pm - Thanks much for saving me the trouble of pointing out the rapid arrival of two versions of Exhibit A.

[George Rebane]

EarlC 842pm - Thanks Bob, I was hoping for a response from my favorite middle-roader.

For a start, it is remarkable that you imply it is the Left that holds "we are all equal in the eyes of the law" as opposed to the Right. As champions of 'equal opportunity' what evidence do you have that the Right rejects that? However, evidence abounds that the Left, as champions of 'equal outcome', rejects such equality in the eyes of the law, for they are the activist supporters and authors of all kinds of legislation, regulations, and mandates that discriminate on the basis of "race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

While you nailed three tenets of the Right, two (intrusion, locality) out of three are shared by a goodly fraction of the Left. In short, they are not reliable discriminants between the Right and Left.

And this is precisely what I meant about your "muddled middle". And without getting too academic, it seems that in your example "common sense" missed the mark.

Having said that, I want to add for my readers that Bob Crabb, social observer and cartoonist extraordinaire, writes a wonderful middle-road blog (see RL 'Bob Crabb in Our Links) that tends to list to port a wee bit now and then. There you will run into many more common sense characteristics of the Right like those sampled above.

[Earl Crabb]

I do follow the news, and I see a good bit of hypocrisy coming from both ends of the spectrum. Paul's points on reproductive rights is spot on, and should be anathema to any libertarian-minded person. Just as sacred are the beliefs of Christians, who should not be forced into any healthcare system that supports contraception or abortion. That's what choice is all about.
If you want examples of hypocrisy on the left, just watch the ruling party in Sacramento any day of the week. It's business as usual for them.
There are just too many people on both sides who feel it is somehow their obligation to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

[George Rebane]

EarlC 1141pm - Bob, many correct statements can be made in a comment stream that are not necessarily relevant to the topic of the post. Hypocrisy per se doesn't even come close to this post's subject matter. But as ScottO's 508pm points out, Paul's 349pm demonstrates the truth of what I and Professor Gage have discovered about how the Left uses various topics of 'issues activism' in place of telling people what their ideological tenets are.

"There are just too many people on both sides who feel it is somehow their obligation to tell the rest of us how to live our lives." Bob, it IS the obligation of socio-political ideologues to present their case for their types of governance. That is what politics is all about.

Your notion of "tell" smacks of commanding. The Left is very much in the business of mandating and commanding people how to live their lives - examples abound, e.g. NYC mayor now getting into breast feeding regulations.

The Right avoids that like the plague. What is confused in the example of abortion ('personhood') is who should be forced to pay for it. Conservatives believe it is a private matter, liberals believe it is a state matter. To pursue this sidetrack example, abortion is legal and everyone who wants one can get one, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to chip in to pay for it.

[Earl Crabb]

"What is confused in the example of abortion (personhood) is who should be forced to pay for it."
With all the pending legislation in various state houses, it would appear that Republicans prefer that women pay for it...with jail time.
And as to my critical view of California's Democrats, this morning's editorial in the Sacto Bee (that bastion of conservatism) pretty much concurs with my complaints...http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/19/4736597/dems-are-making-a-mess-of-big.html

[George Rebane]

EarlC 824am - your citing jail time as the equivalence of government 'paying for it' is a strongly liberal position - you sure that you're a middy? ;-)

Republicans prefer that women who can't pay for their own abortions learn to use contraceptives. And women who want to bottle feed their babies are not interfered with.

[Gregory]

If the left-liberals among us treated 2nd amendment rights equivalently to the rights that were discovered by the court majority in Roe v. Wade, anyone who could not afford the gun of their choice would be issued one.

Personally, I think the gov't should have nothing to do with contraception or elective abortion, either paying for it or criminalizing it, except in the case of the aborting of a healthy baby beginning somewhere around the third trimester unless it truly is an issue of saving the life of the mother.

[TomKenworth]

"To pursue this sidetrack example, abortion is legal and everyone who wants one can get one, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to chip in to pay for it.

Oh really?

Then these folks in these images are voting for which party?

https://www.google.com/search?q=abortion+anti+image&hl=en&lr=&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=QCExUJLWJuH0iwLd4YDIBg&ved=0CFAQ_AUoAQ&biw=1545&bih=973

[TomKenworth]

If the Republican stand is as you suggest, George, then why did these groups endorse Romney?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/04/12/Romney-endorsed-by-anti-abortion-groups/UPI-12961334255097/

Could it be that Romney, the Republican standard bearer, is not a "real Republican?"

[Paul Emery]

"Republicans prefer that women who can't pay for their own abortions learn to use contraceptives."
No George, Republicans and conservatives don't believe women have the right to an abortion and are sponsoring legislation to make that happen. Ryan and the "born again conservative" Romney subscribe to the most extreme version - That "personhood" begins at the instant of conception-possibly minutes after copulation. That would make morning after pills illegal. I can cite examples all day starting with Ryan and Romney.

So what are the " ideological tenets " that conservatives adhere to that takes away a woman's right to choose and makes abortion illegal?

[Todd Juvinall]

Why is it the liberals cite Roe v Wade based on a "right of privacy" made from whole cloth as the woman's right to abort yet ask the public to pay for them? Anyone? Anyone? Silence?

No government money for the private act of the results of a woman's act of copulation.

[TomKenworth]

"Thanks much for saving me the trouble of pointing out the rapid arrival of two versions of Exhibit A.

Posted by: George Rebane | 18 August 2012 at 09:38 PM "

Nice job of dehumanization, George. Since you seem to miss the point, too often, the term, "Exhibit A" is most commonly used in court trials, to refer to inanimate objects, or photos and graphs, and using it to refer to your fellow humans is degrading to them, but not uncommon, among the bullies of the world.

[George Rebane]

TomK 1029am & 1041am - Doug, I have long maintained that you are beyond corrigibility, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. In this case you have again supported my contention.

Anti-abortion groups endorse Romney because he most closely represents their beliefs about abortion. I copy my 1031am comment from 'Dems Happy Dancing ...' on the matter.

'Abortion rights' constantly confuse people who cannot separate the legality of aborting a fetus from the payment for the procedure. The liberals' disconnect is always that if you don't support the government's paying for something, then you are against that something, be it the 'right-to-choose' or 'censorship' or ... . And so we are a nation of two minds. Conservatives' position is to keep the government completely out of the process - don't pick my pocket for all the bad decisions of others, I already have to pay for enough of them.

(For the attentive reader - please note how the liberals' intellectual basis subject has predictably morphed into an 'issue activism' discussion. One can always hope that some progressive can summon a unique tenet of liberal ideology upon which they base their support of the issue of all pregnant women having the 'right' to a state paid abortion on demand. For extra credit, they may also similarly substantiate their support for state paid surreptitious abortions for pregnant children.)

Re your 1041am - sorry that you didn't understand that such expressions are also used for the ideas presented. In this case one Exhibit A was your lame off-the-point graphic.

[TomKenworth]

There are 36,100,000 images brought up by that search. I defy you to find ONE sign that says, "we oppose having the government pay for abortion, but if you want to pay for it yourself, that's cool."

"please note how the liberals' intellectual basis subject has predictably morphed into an 'issue activism' discussion. "

~ George Rebane | 19 August 2012 at 10:44 AM~

Issue activism is the new curse word? Oh my, so Repubbys are pure and have no issues they are active about? ROTFLMAO!

"liberals' intellectual basis subject"

huh? Please write out in plain English, that Todd can understand. Unclear, as FitzGibbon would say.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1034am - I am not aware of any Repubs or conservatives who want to criminalize abortions save late-term abortions in which a fully formed living child is extracted and killed. Please give us specifics.

[TomKenworth]

Why should the public pay for abortion?

1.) Unwanted babies lesd to many social problems.

2.) Unwanted babuies are not as well cared for, either in or out of the womb.

3.) Rape and incest certainly call for abortion.

4.) Male partners, equally responsible, wind up not committed to the relationship or the children, leaving the state to pick up the tab on a life long basis, including often incarceration, at $47,000/year in California, and you ask what's bankrupting the state?

5.) The quality of life of a child is strongly influenced by the educational level of the mother, and her education is likely to be slowed, if not stopped, taking care of an unplanned pregnancy.

6.) The unwanted babies of today are not being adopted by the do-gooder "no Abortions" groups, as evidenced by over 100,000 awaiting adoption in group homes in California alone.

7.) Overpopulation is occurring when we can't even come up with balanced budgets and adequate water supplies.

Oooops, I guess that's some more evil "issue activism." Gotta give the Redwings credit for coming up with new and fresh curse words to describe the Left.

Joint project by my wife and myself

[billy T]

The 60's were great. Protests in the streets against the War, burning down Bank of America and corporate greed. Civil rights that would put an end to discrimination and the N word. Women burning bras in Houston to decry inequality. Environmental awareness and communes springing up in various woods and deserts. Monks setting themselves on fire to protest gross injustices. Sticking it to the man and good bye J. Edgar Hoover. Togetherness and on with the revolution. The war on poverty and no more bull shit. Lofty and worthy goals, except that part about don't trust anyone over 30. Emotion over intellect. Feelings over substance. Today we are left with straw men to slay for the pursuit of power and absolute control. Ends justify the means. In reality it is if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. Truth has become subjective and character does not matter. The age of compartmentalization. Integrity no longer means "wholeness". The far left has become The Who's Teenage Wasteland. Sacrifice is so last century and viable solutions are the new sacrificial lamb. Freedom of speech has been replaced by censorship, usually self imposed to fit in. Sure, the left, right and middle smile upon their neighbor, pet their dogs and wave to the mailman...er...mail carrier. We are not all serial killers like Romney. I am glad Bain Capital saved 31 Flavors, although they sell dairy products. Something I can overlook to get along and return to the Age of Civility. Opps there never was an Age of Civility, unless your believe in the Garden of Eden. No, the Merv Griffin Show does not count. Cowboys and Aliens. Time to stand your ground. The Constitution is my Alamo. Scoff at me til the cows come home. I have made my stand and it is not in the Teenage Wasteland.

[Paul Emery]

Okay George, for the sake of this discussion do you support a woman's right to chose if the government doesn't pay for it?

Romney and Ryan oppose reproductive rights outright irregardless of who pays for it.

[George Rebane]

TomK 1103am - OK, now we know you didn't even read (understand?) my post. The "Redwing" who introduced the "issue activism" to this discussion is the very liberal Professor Beverly Gage. But you are performing par for the course.

Your laundry list could be replicated for countless individual and group behaviors that reduce the quality of life for the rest of us. Why should the state not insert itself for the rest of them. Liberals have no principle which dictates the state's responsibility to alleviate some but not all of them.

[billy T]

reproductive rights? Laws are made by Congress, not the Executive branch. A State can pass laws all day long and it is up to the Supreme Court to deem them constitutional or not. The President has the bully pulpit, not the power of making laws. The President can veto legislation which the elected representatives can override. 50% of the people are pro abortion, 50% are against. In a complex and diverse society with unnumbered interests and issues, most people are not single issue voters. Some are. Issues like abortion can be phrased as Pro Life or Pro Death, but neither side has a overwhelming mandate. I personally believe a life passes through the womb. but is not from the womb. But, that is just me. Worthy topic for debate and hundreds of thousands of more words. Don't think one side or the other can overturn Roe vs Wade, so it is just a fun exchange of ideas on such a summer's day.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1108am - "reproductive rights" is liberal talk for abortion, correct? Have not read anywhere that R/R oppose such rights regardless of who pays for them. Sure would like to see a citation.

My own position is that it's a woman's or a parent's right to decide whether and when to perform an abortion on themselves or their ward. Although I do believe that late term abortions are tantamount to a legalized killing. Other cultures also sanction legalized killings not executed by the state; late term abortions just happen to be one kind that our culture condones. In any event, I don't want to fund these kinds of remediations for bad behavior by others. (But I thought that I've made this clear for years on these pages.)

[Gregory]

"OK, now we know you didn't even read (understand?) my post."

George, from my understanding of the fellow gathered for over a decade, it isn't about the ideas. It's about his winning. A problem is that he doesn't care if he makes a valid point or just succeeds in muddying the waters in some degree, and it's usually the latter.

Keach, if a woman wants the father to be equally responsible for the developing critter, she should marry him, which is a primary reason for the institution to begin with.

[TomKenworth]

So, other than late term abortions, George does not promote forbidding them via legislation, those middle and early term abortions, but neither does he intend to support them with his tax dollars.

He'd rather spend his tax dollars on the predictable and expensive results. Many of the local schools in the Greater Sacramento Valley Area have 50 - 60% free lunches, which George & friends will get to pay for.

[TomKenworth]

"She correctly delineates the liberal approach of framing and executing their efforts in terms of “issue-oriented activism” that is essentially free of any philosophical base, and appeals directly to the emotional perception of violated social justice."

sorta like "God said it, I read it, and that settles it?"

Where in all of the teachings of all of the religions does it say you have to have a written down and codified belief system in order to have a just and moral life?

Keep in mind that Christianity did quite well for many centuries with a nearly totally illiterate common populace.

[TomKenworth]

"OK, now we know you didn't even read (understand?) my post. The "Redwing" who introduced the "issue activism" to this discussion is the very liberal Professor Beverly Gage. But you are performing par for the course."

~George Rebane | 19 August 2012 at 11:25 AM~

" pointing out the rapid arrival of two versions of Exhibit A." George, you need to be clearer next time about what you are referring to, in your original comment.

But your usage of the term "issues activism" clearly put it into the derogatory pile, as reinforced by your "I don't want to fund these kinds of remediations for bad behavior by others"

[billy T]

Here we go again. Excellent in depth commentary, Dr. Rebane. Darn, it is so hard to stay on topic. Reading the posts one would think the Great Divide boils down to one topic: abortion. Guess it as good of a nutshell as any. Heard that when Mitt and Paul recently sat down for their interview with Paul Shaffer, CBS cut out their discussion of Mediscare. I was looking forward to hearing their plans out of their own mouths, not some soft ball questions. Oh well. This abortion thing really strikes to the heart and soul of many Americans. It was a dark and windy night when I was listening to some radio station heading up from the west. They aired a speech Madeleine Albright gave to a group of students at an all girls college. Madeleine did a decent job I reckon as Secretary of State and I was curious as what the former member of the Clinton Administration was up to. Her speech was on one topic, one topic only: abortion. She called people who believe as I do "evil doers" and the pro-abortion advocates "the good". I pulled over and listened for 30 minutes. I wondered with her experience and expertise and education why she stayed on this one topic when addressing the young bright future of America. No striving to excel, no words on obstacles to overcome, no antidotes from her past, just slamming the evil doers. Then, I recalled something in my distant pass I heard my Mother once tell me. "Some day good will be called evil and evil will be called good". Guess that sums up Ms. Albright's and the far left's politics.

[Ryan Mount]

Thank you for PDF annotations Mr. Rebane. I found your comments about Professor Gage's "liberals look to the future, while conservatives look to the past" spot on. It's ironic that a Liberal like Professor Gage takes such a orthodox approach here. Orthodox in that she's parroting the conventional wisdom about what a Liberal is and what a Conservative is. In America, we're all Liberals. Period. Some are Liberal collectivists (a term I'm warming up to), and some are Classical Liberals and of course some who are a mix.

Her article is indeed sharp, but overly apologetic towards the liberal position, whatever the hell that is. Again, ironic.

In her interview on NPR, which compliments this Slate article, she was quick to not that her "conservative" students show up to class having read a wide spectrum of Left and Right thought. Her Liberal students, she intimated, have read nothing. My assumption is they're showing up with their thumbs in their mouths. But that's just a guess.

Current Leftish thought is completely disorganized and factionalized. I have post-modern sympathies, largely because I think they are misunderstood. I've seen elsewhere on the Internets conservative commentators blaming post-modern thought for the decay of the Liberal cannon (if there is such a thing). One thing I can say about post-modern thinking however, is its (well most) proprietors aren't afraid to tear apart convention, sometimes just for the sake of ripping it to shreds. If it feels like intellectual Anarchy, it probably is. It's fun though. Jacques Derrida, for example, is a master at ripping classical thought to pieces.

[George Rebane]

billyT 548pm - thanks for that recollection. It's hard for me to picture Sec Albright calling her opposite ideologues "evil", but I don't doubt your memory. Most certainly, given my background, I am prone to call collectivism evil to the marrow of their bones. But that may give the simpletons too much credit. You have to have in mind a grand strategy for a unified, all-powerful global government for the 'evil' label to stick - at least IMHO.

I don't think the majority of liberals have such a strategy in mind. Especially, when evidence from academic studies (Gage's withstanding) and surveys are included. They are not bright enough to have such grandiose plans for humanity. Nevertheless, they can and do serve as the useful foot soldiers (dare I say 'Lenin's idiots'?) for those with such plans.

RyanM 746pm - thanks for that addendum on Gage. I wonder, does Derrida have a the wherewithal to substitute something equally as substantial to inform and sustain western culture after he has ripped apart classical thought? Thoughts?

[TomKenworth]

Here's a political move we can all agree on:

[Paul Emery]

George

I'm glad you support a woman's right to choose. I'm sure then you don't support the overturning of Roe v Wade. That decision was fundamental in overturning state laws that did indeed criminalize abortions.
I certainly understand though I do not necessarily support your desire not to pay for anthers mistakes. Does that include abortions because of rape or incest?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 908pm - I support what I have outlined re abortion.

Perhaps we can tease a bit of liberal ideology out of you. Can you give us the scope of individual mistakes that should be rectified with state mandated taxpayer funds? Is there any place where you draw the line on personal responsibility?

[billy T]

Hope and Change I can believe in: http://www.businessinsider.com/newsweek-cover-obama-must-go-2012-8

[TomKenworth]

"Can you give us the scope of individual mistakes that should be rectified with state mandated taxpayer funds? "

For starters, the USA is attempting to correct the mistakes of more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States, by keeping them in prison or jail.[13][14

It's not working too good...

[Paul Emery]

Well George, at least we can agree that at least in the case of a woman's right to choose it is the Right that is "reintroducing the systematic removal of individual liberties" by advocating opposition to Roe v Wade which affirmed the rights of woman to make those decisions free of government intrusion.

You ask a mighty question however when you challenge me to define the scope of individual mistakes that should be rectified with tax payer money. As a believer in universal health care It raises difficult questions about personal habits and lifestyle decisions that lead to such conditions as obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual activities...all of which could be defined as a personal choice but none the less leads to suffering and illness. Would you advocate no government assistance for Aids patients? I would think not.

Should taxpayer money be used to bail out "too big to fail " financial institutions such as AIG? Not in my view but we should have regulations in place that clearly define fraud and criminal activity to prevent us being in that situation.

Rep Ryan, of course was a TARP supporter and favored government stimulus during the Bush Admin so why does he call himself a conservative?

I will gladly offer more on this when I have time. Having to work is such an inconvenience and restriction on my freedom.

[TomKenworth]

Niall Ferguson appears to be a sock puppet for someone, as his arguing style is very familiar:

http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-fergusons-embarrassing-response-to-paul-krugman-2012-8

[Ryan Mount]

I have an anecdotal note. Years ago, when I was struggling with a Continental (well, French) Post-Modern theory, a cultural battle broke out in the late 1980s between the New Critics of the mid-20th Century and Derrida. They accused him of being a parasite. Derrida shot back by deconstructing the word parasite, and how you can not have a parasite without a host. That, and sorry for the post-modern rigmarole, that each was a part dependent (co-dependent?) on each other; that you knew one because of the other. They defined each other in some kind of meaning-dance.

Many post-moderns enjoy hair-splitting a topic until everyone loses interest. Sometimes they'll devote dozens of pages of explication to single words. Derrida, for example, once devoted some 80 pages to discuss the word "yes" as it appears in James Joyce's Ulysses. (I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Derrida didn't enjoy reading it) Then they declare victory after everyone has fallen asleep.

A more popular and recent Boomer version came from President Clinton and his famous equivocation over the word "is."

Anyhow, a few years later, Derrida admitted that he was a parasite and seemed proud of it in how "disruptive" it can be:

"All I have done … is dominated by the thought of a virus, what could be called a parasitology, a virology, the virus being many things…. The virus is in part a parasite that destroys, that introduces disorder into communication. Even from the biological standpoint, this is what happens with a virus; it derails a mechanism of the communicational type, its coding and decoding. On the other hand, it is something that is neither living nor non-living; the virus is not a microbe. And if you follow these two threads, that of a parasite which disrupts destination from the communicative point of view—disrupting writing, inscription, and the coding and decoding of inscription—and which on the other hand is neither alive nor dead, you have the matrix of all that I have done since I began writing."

My apologies for the quote above. But I carried that cross for you in several seminars. You're welcome. This is just a taste.

[Ryan Mount]

BTW, I'm struck in this very thread how the New Left is sticking to issues, and the Old Left (Classical Liberals, or "Conservatives") are trying to get at it's philosophical underpinnings.

Derrida, again sorry for raising his Freedom Fry name again, was often accused of being conservative, and in more acrimonious arguments, a fascist for constantly questioning (even down to word choice) the assumptions of an argument.

One wonders what an In-n-Out drive thru experience might have been like for Mr. Derrida (he moved to Irvine, CA in the 80s).

Drive thru speaker: Would you like Onions on your Double-Double?

Derrida: What does "like Onions" mean?

[TomKenworth]

"Derrida: What does "like Onions" mean?"

It means, "certainly slightly more than one, and most likely not more than four, and these would thin slices of onions. Do you want extra ketchup, or does the fact that it is "extra" exclude it from consideration?"

[Earl Crabb]

Back in the carefree days of the nineteen-eighties, it was popular to take In-and-Out Burger bumper stickers and color in the first and last letters of "burger".

[George Rebane]

RyanM 1139am - I hope that you're not inferring that people with a rational ideology are prevented from addressing and "sticking to issues". The ideology-based advocates have a clear direction and charter with which to grapple with issues that they should either oppose or promote.

It's not an either/or situation, but one of 'principle + issue' vs 'no principle + issue'.

[TomKenworth]

"our governments becoming more dysfunctional with every passing month."

no kidding?

http://my.firedoglake.com/kitoconnell/2012/08/13/the-crackdown-on-chalk-chalkupy-austin/

[Ryan Mount]

> not inferring that people with a rational ideology are prevented from addressing and "sticking to issues".

No, I was not implying that. Let me try it this way:

- New Left = issues. The issues are a means to an ends. Their neo-philosophical cannon seems to be whimsical, by design disguised as "diversity."

- Old(?) Left = inquiry/philosophy + issues. Also interested in the issues, but have a relatively firm philosophical cannon, however it is open to revision given enough evidence.

I am somewhat of a loss as to what I should label everyone. We sometimes categorize to our peril.

[TomKenworth]

Please list the principles and logic of the Bible, a text many Tea Party folk seem to have as their only reading material.

[George Rebane]

RyanM 1244pm - We do indeed categorize at our peril. However, the peril of using broadly understood summarizing labels is much less than having to include a descriptive sketch (also perilous) every time we want to quickly characterize someone. The value always comes from how reliably can the addressee then predict/understand the behaviors of the so labeled.

TomK 1248pm - Don't know any Tea Partiers who are so limited. Would love to reprise random surveys taken of the knowledge bases of TP members vs Occupiers. Comedy Central could stand some competition.

[TomKenworth]

List the principles and logic of the Bible first, please, then let's try matching contestants up, by age and educational attainment, no problem.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+bible+image&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2JkyUI-lHceRiALH4oGwBg&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1787&bih=942#hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=tea+party+bible+image+john+3:16+baptist&oq=tea+party+bible+image+john+3:16+baptist&gs_l=img.3...63422.67517.2.68316.8.8.0.0.0.0.252.1014.5j1j2.8.0...0.0...1c.he94WT9eDVo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6ea56a4c5fd2766&biw=1787&bih=942

[Ryan Mount]

George-

English writer William Blake pointed out that "To generalise[sic] is to be an Idiot." Which of course, is a generalization. So maybe we're allowed to categorize as long as we do it in a sober, mindful and frankly playful fashion and avoid, for example, pronouncements about many Tea Party folk being Bible (or Ayn Rand) thumpers. Does that make the Occupy crowds, I dunno, Howard Zinn zealots?

Did I address your question from above regarding that Conservatives are also interested in the issues as well, but from a somewhat different starting point? It's always embarrassing to shove people into a silo, only to find out that you've shoved 20% in the wrong one.

[George Rebane]

RyanM 123pm - Question addressed; your starting point argument is on the mark. Conservative issues arise out of principles violated or in need of support. And it seems that only conservatives attempt to understand liberal issues and stances by connecting them to principles unclaimed. And when these are identified due to their power to explain, the liberals go to great pains to deny the asserted provenance of such principles, and offer no alternatives in return.

[TomKenworth]

And George, with all his principles in a row, offers no solutions to too many people, too few jobs.

[George Rebane]

re TomK's 158pm - To the interested reader: these pages are full of my best shots and attendant comment threads about the kinds of work under-educated people can do in these pre-Singularity years. As usual, these thoughts are not accessible to the more liberal minds.

[billy T]

I suppose that is why profiling drives some up the wall. A chap with his pants down around his knees chasing a woman in a dark alley with a butcher knife might be a potential rapist, but I could be wrong. I was told not to judge by someone who spends hours picking over apples and oranges before buying a bag of fruit. I have been told by friend and foe that I don't "fit the profile" numerous times. First they called me a psychopath, then they changed it to a sociopath. Good gawd, wish they would make up their minds. Later they thought I was a paranoid schizophrenic, but upon further investigation the doc said "We are all better now." Hated to lose all those labels and be left void of my nice warm comfy pigeon holes.. Like a man without a country, alone, adrift on a lonely hostile planet. Back in the day nobody had attention deficit disorder, except in a heat wave when the girls were out in force in their skimpy outfits. Now they say there are no absolutes, but that sounds like an absolute statement. I tried that post modern stuff, but I did not like the girlie men I sat in the sensitivity indoctrination circles with. Bunch of kill joys. I enjoyed being in the survivors of liberalism recovery sessions much more as it was free and the the ladies were down to earth, laughed alot and hard to catch. Sometimes it is good to leave things to the imagination. And they were a lot happier than those stick in-the-muds at sensitivity indoctrination. Speaking generally, of course.

[TomKenworth]

"these pages are full of my best shots and attendant comment threads about the kinds of work under-educated people can do in these pre-Singularity years."

~ George Rebane | 20 August 2012 at 02:49 PM~

Let's see, I can recall, low end medical attendants, burger flippers, long haul truckers, and oil field mechanics, but the latter two require training and being a long ways from home. That only handles 92% of the population pre-singularity. What happens post singularity? Into the sea? The less and less cash people have, the fewer things that will be long hauled, and the less gas will be needed for the long hauling. Why do you think gas prices are going down these days?

[billy T]

Hmmm. Tom, I think you did a typo. Gas prices have risen for 21 straight days. The 18 cent per gallon is the biggest one week jump in gas price history the week before last. Gas prices should dip once the summer driving season passes. The East Coast is down 3 refineries over the past 5 years, but they use Brent crude, which we don't use on the West Coast. Obama is set to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on Sept 3 to temporarily lower prices before the election. Guess that is Obama's way of saying prices are just supply and demand. The value of the dollar is probably the 2nd biggest reason for gas and oil prices. Anyway, back closer to home: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/moodys-more-calif-cities-risk-193719080.html

[Earl Crabb]

George, I think you should spend more time finding out where your Republicans get their intellectual foundations. After seeing the Todd Akins meltdown today and the Sharon Angle debacle in 2010, it's a damn miracle you can get anybody elected to office, much less take over the majority in the Senate.

[Gregory]

Earl, Akins was in many ways the pick of the Democrats, not mainstream republicans. Akins, the candidate the sleazoid incumbent wanted to run against, got about $2 million in Democratic money and many Dems crossed over to vote for Akins in the primary.

[Earl Crabb]

I'm aware of the Democrat's shenannigans, much like Gray Davis' campaign against Richard Riordan back in '02, but the fact remains that enough Republicans are onboard with Akins' extreme positions (including Ryan) to give the Dems mucho ammunition in the coming slugfest. It's like I've been saying for years, the social issues are the GOP's achilles heel.
http://medcitynews.com/2012/08/legitimate-rape-comment-ryans-support-for-personhood-law-could-push-more-women-to-democrats/

[Ryan Mount]

So perhaps the only thing worse than Akin's vile and ignorant comments, is/was the contempt Democrats had for the electoral process:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-todd-akins-win-gives-democrats-hope-in-missouri/2012/08/08/6e0246b8-e16c-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html

What's worse? A repugnant cretin like Akin*, or the Democrats cynically smoking such a candidate out as a partisan Straw Man? I'm not even sure that's a fair question to ask because I thinking (hoping) that the answer is neither.

* I visited his website, and I actually support a few of his policies, but it's hard to overlook his recent comments.

[billy T]

Mr. Crabb raises some valid points. Human beings are definitely flawed. Both sides of the isle have had their share of bloopers, blunders, and down right shake your head moments. He said what?? Now, Nixon was a weirdo. Felt sorry for Jerry Ford with that bumbling fool label attached to him. Heck, he was an All American football player from Michigan but it was fun watching comical sketches of Jerry walking into walls. Add to that his son Steve smoking pot in the White House and sneaking in girls and Betty looking like a lot of Moms out there, one got the feeling they were the family next door. I don't understand this growing story of House Republicans skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee. Whats the big deal? Did not know my party of family values is barred from going upstream of the bridges at the river. Sure, that guy from Idaho who was playing footsie in a mens public restroom was creepy to say the least. I do console myself knowing Republicans are the first to throw their own under the bus when they mess up. Closer to home and more on topic of the The Liberals’ Intellectually Baseless Ideology, have you read the police blotter lately? In the liberal bastion of Nevada City, yesterday a caller complained that her neighbor's bar-b-que was emitting particles into the air. Today a caller was ratting on his neighbor claiming that the neighbor's truck was spewing fumes that were harming his outdoor cats. Mayor Bloomberg would be proud. Todd Akin is toast.

[George Rebane]

EarlC 1014pm - Never confuse a political party with the ideology that they publicly claim to embrace - e.g. classical liberal ideology with the Republican Party, or Marxist ideology with the Democrats. The political parties are shills to those ideologies, touting and dropping their tenets as is their convenience. The best we can say about politicians is that the overwhelming part of them range from amorally pragmatic to being shiftless skunks. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible.

[TomKenworth]

"Earl, Akins was in many ways the pick of the Democrats, not mainstream republicans. Akins, the candidate the sleazoid incumbent wanted to run against, got about $2 million in Democratic money and many Dems crossed over to vote for Akins in the primary."

~ Gregory | 21 August 2012 at 12:19 AM~

He was the choice for an easy win, and certainly NOT the choice to be the actual winning candidate. There's a difference. Climbing up and over the dead bodies of your opposition to reach office is common practice in politics.

[TomKenworth]

"Hmmm. Tom, I think you did a typo. Gas prices have risen for 21 straight days."

~ billy T | 20 August 2012 at 09:24 PM~

You're looking at too short a time frame, and taking in the momentary blip for vacations and Labor Day, and the Chevron refinery fire. Predictions early this spring by Repubbys were hoping for 5 to 7 dollar a gallon prices by election day. This does not appear to be happening, even with the suspicious fire in Richmond.

In the 2008 elections gas went from over $4 a gallon in June 2008 and the way down to $1.70 or so by December 2008, the lowest in many years, and it still didn't save McCain's butt.

[Earl Crabb]

Must agree with Billy T. that skinnydipping is hardly a capital offense. Used to see a lot of Nevada County politicians in the buff back in the good ol' daze. Hope the kid doesn't get crucified over it. If Repubby's keep culling the herd there won't be enough left for a decent stampede.

[TomKenworth]

Here, BTW, is the local job fair info coming up in Roseville this Friday. Embry probably has some nice teaching spots in Afghanistan....and there are a lot of part time temporary art instructors' jobs...in San Diego.

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/hhs/public_assistance/CalWorks/~/media/hhs/hhsCalWorks/documents/2012jobfair/List%20of%20Attending%20Employers.ashx

[TomKenworth]

BTW, if it is a legitimate election, does the government work to shut the whole thing down?

On skinny dipping, like can you picture Jesus in a pair of Hawaiian surfer dude trunks? I rather doubt he wore anything when he went into the Sea of Galilee, except when he took the walking tour. Total non issue, no need to apologize, more religious snobbery, like the Muslims and the cartoons.

[billy T]

Tom, thanks for the humor on the other thread concerning BLT's. Sometimes you delight me. Scarey that I get your humor. Anyone who says they don't love bacon is a liar, IMHO. You might be right about the ebb and flow on seasonal gasoline prices. I don't know any one who is cheering rising gasoline prices because it hurts the poorest the hardest. Not even for political advantage. We bleed Red White and Blue, not red white and green. Still does not factor in the value of the dollar. Here is an unbiased short term view. I know, unbiased means boring, but you caught me in a rather unusual conciliatory moment. Must be those sandwiches I have been buying at the Briar Patch, or that new left nut transplant I recently had. Think it has me leaning a bit left lately. Better call the surgeon and ask what was in that thing. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-gasoline-u-rises-record-150912501.html

[Gregory]

"He was the choice for an easy win, and certainly NOT the choice to be the actual winning candidate."

TK/Keachie, that was the point.

[TomKenworth]

Interesting position of the editor on Page 7, under, Whitehouse Watchdog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/greene-county-virginia-gop-obama-revolution_n_1501510.html?fb_action_ids=423988707637843%2C10151363773707782%2C3407774164248%2C10151065447734585%2C276065542495625&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_ref=type%3Aread%2Cuser%3AYEeNnnJLHgxI7kSwh3XN6m1BrlM&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22423988707637843%22%3A10150783907876867%2C%2210151363773707782%22%3A10150783907876867%2C%223407774164248%22%3A10151040875618722%2C%2210151065447734585%22%3A10151040875618722%2C%22276065542495625%22%3A10151171450640409%2C%22276058979162948%22%3A10151190898728086%2C%224443623059005%22%3A10150782469822357}

That's a long link, not sure that's going to work.

[billy T]

Oh TomK. don't fall for that old song and dance. When I was younger, my neighbor told my Dad that he was moving to Canada if Goldwater won. How many movies stars vowed the same thing if Bush beat Kerry. Plus there probably won't be an armed insurrection if Obama is reelected. First, its the economy. The price of ammo has increased in these tough times, bro. I suppose they could eliminate the warning shots, but that is not playing fair. Most of those hot heads couldn't organize a circle jerk. Same for the left. I don't see them swimming across shark infested waters to get to Venezuela or bundling up their fur coats and heading to Canada. Just like a bunch of Occupy Wall Streeters blowing off steam. We have a civil passing of the baton in politics. Not pretty, but civil, eh?

[TomKenworth]

Civil as long as we don't beat one another about the head with it.

[billy T]

That's half the fun. Every party has a pooper...