Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Your ideology is not superior
Published on November 19, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

I'm a conservative. I make no bones about it. I have plenty of liberal friends. Most of my "good" political discussions are with my friends who are liberal. I have a friend in New York who I talk to a few times a week and I respect his opinions immensely. He's also very liberal.

There is a basic problem in our country right now, however. I look at the positions my liberal friends take, listen to them, and ultimately decide I don't agree with them. But I respect their right to an opinion.  But all too often, liberals do not have that same respect for conservatives and their opinions. Supporting Bush's policies is not a sign of ignorance, greed, selfishness, or warmongering. In my case, I support Bush's policies because of careful consideration.

I do not agree with Bush on every issue. The deficit being a real issue for me. But overall, I consider him to be on the right side of many issues. I don't expect liberals to agree with me. But I do expect them to show some basic respect for my right to my opinion and not to assume that my opinions are inferior to theirs.

Some of my friends have tried to argue that "Well, both sides have their share of kooks that don't have any respect for the other side." Sure. Both sides have their kooks. But I am not going to accept that there's something even remotely approaching a balance.  The American left's most vocal advocates right now are much more militant than any other group. They have been for the past 4 years. They're hateful, nasty, and intolerant of other points of view.

Look at this website for instance: 

There's 500 pages of pretentious left wingers "apologizing" to the world that we elected Bush.  How arrogant.  There's the whole "Jesus Land" map floating around the net - implying that Kerry lost only because conservatives are a bunch of religious zealots. More arrogance.

Some would argue that since the liberals are the minority right now, that it makes sense for them to be more militant and vocal.  But you'd be hard pressed, even during the Clinton administration, to find evidence vast amounts of hateful, condescending arrogance from the right.

I never assume people who voted for Kerry were "stupid" or "moronic" or "selfish".  I simply feel that they supported Kerry because he was closer in line to their positions on a host of issues.

I think that liberals, by nature, are more arrogant than conservatives. And I'll tell you why: Because through their actions over the past few decades, liberals have demonstrated that they do not trust the democratic process.

Why do I say that? Two reasons:

First - they repeatedly have shown that they think elections are rigged and that's the only reason why they "lose". It's a good thing Kerry did lose Ohio. You know why? Because the monkey business in Wisconsin on election day would have been a bigger deal.  You see, Bush only lost Wisconsin by 11,000 votes. If Bush had won Wisconsin, Ohio wouldn't have mattered. But here's the thing, Democrats slashed all the tires on the Bush campaign's vehicles on election day.  In fact, the Republican HQs in Wisconsin were subject to repeated quasi-terrorist attacks during the final days.  You think that might have affected the Bush "get out the vote" efforts? You bet they did. In a major metro area, get out the vote drives, on election eve and election day generate tens of thousands of votes.  While Kerry supporters try to argue that Ohio was "Barely" for Bush (Bush won by 140,000 votes), the difference in Wisconsin really hits home. If you want to talk about dirty tricks, it was the Democrats who played the dirtiest.  Go ahead and Google it, try to find cases of Democratic operatives being attacked or kept from running their HQs in various states. They are few and far between. 

Here in Livonia Michigan, the big old giant Kerry signs shown proudly on Farmington Rd all the way up to election.  The big Bush signs? About a week before election someone painted "Nazi" on the Bush signs (which caused them to be taken down).  Sure, it's an "isolated" incident but it all adds up.

Second - The other reason I think it's clear that liberals don't trust the electorate has to do with their tactics.  Liberals use the courts to get their way rather than trying to get their way through the democratic process.  I've talked to liberals on-line, in email, and in person over the years and the same thing comes up "You can't count on the average person to do the right thing, that's why you need judges."  No. That's bullshit.  I happen to trust the average person to "do the right thing".

If the people of Hicksville USA want to allow a moment of silence in their classroom, that's fine with me.  If they want to put up a 10 commandments plaque in their class room, that's fine too. Only if something violates the constitution in a way that's unbeatable should judges get in.  The constitution, if you read the whole thing, is pretty clear on the matter - if it's not obviously covered by the constitution, it's left to the people to decide.  In fact, so insistent on that point were the founders that they added the 10th amendment lest there be any confusion. If it's not spelled out in the constitution, then the people have the right to make the law on a local level.

As an agnostic, I don't care about religion. But I do know that having a plaque showing the 10 commandments is not the same as establishing a state religion. At Christmas I put up a Christmas tree. Does that make me a pagan? I also put up a Nativity scene. Oh gosh, I'm so conflicted.

But liberals have shown that they don't trust the will of the people. They use the courts.  You want gay marriage? Fine. Make your case to the people. Don't go judge shopping.

But they don't make their case to the people because liberals, far more so than conservatives, have little (ahem) faith in the wisdom of the common man. Hence, when someone like George W. Bush gets elected, it doesn't occur to most of them that perhaps their views are out of touch with the mainstream. No, they instead argue that the people were somehow tricked. Or that they're just plain "stupid" or that they need to be "enlightened".

Many conservatives, such as myself, are outraged when our views are trivialized like that.  We look at the lives we lead, the accomplishments we've made, the contributions we provide to society and can't help but wonder where the liberal arrogance comes from.  For instance, red counties on average have a much lower crime rate than blue counties. Even counties that have similar populations. Why is that? Republicans tend to make more money. That's not a surprise. But are they Republicans because they're wealthy or are they wealthy because their life philosophy is more conducive to financial success? I believe it's the latter. Who gives more to charity? Which kind of people grow most of the food? Which kind of people create most of the jobs? Which kind of people are the ones to volunteer first to defend their country? Which ones are more likely to stay married? Which ones are more likely to have children in wedlock?

In other words, conservatives have plenty of room to be snobby - if they chose. But there seems to be a greater level of. well decency with the right.  If you're liberal and reading this you're probably outraged at that claim. But I can't conclude anything else. Even the right wing kooks I see on-line rarely get into venomous name calling nearly as easy as left wingers do.  The left still talks about McCarthyism as if it was yesterday. But I probably get called a "Nazi" once a week by some left winger.  I'm sorry but if you think my political beliefs are somehow extreme, you need to re-evaluate your positions. My positions on most issues are, at most, slightly right of center by any sort of objective measurement.

If the American left wants to have any influence in society, they need to get over themselves. They need to recognize that there are other view points that are equally valid to theirs. They need to recognize that diversity isn't just about skin pigment. They need to recognize that tolerance isn't just a catch-phrase. 

Comments (Page 1)
on Nov 19, 2004
Good stuff. I can't agree with you on "Sorry Everybody" being arrogant, but the use of the courts to shape policy and culture is certainly a powerful tactic relied upon by ideological lefties to insure their way is supported. No wonder there is such hand wringing at the thought of Bush appointing new justices. In the end, however, their fears are unjustified, it will be conservative christians who will be the most disappointed regarding the appointees.

on Nov 19, 2004
Deference- You make a good point about the Supreme Court. As a conservative there is nothing I would love more than to pack with court with more Scalias and Thomases but the reality is they have to get through confirmation. Regardless of GOP control in Congress, Washington politics will lead to compromise on some choices, easy approval for others, and probably tough fights against most of them.
on Nov 19, 2004
I totally agree with the points made here. and the worst part is that they do not see it themselves! Talk about Arrogant.
on Nov 19, 2004
There are nuts on both sides of the political spectrum. I see too often the right lumping the left into the crazies group.
on Nov 19, 2004

Reply By: whoman69Posted: Friday, November 19, 2004
There are nuts on both sides of the political spectrum. I see too often the right lumping the left into the crazies group.

Not Crazies in this case.  Arrogance.  How no other opinion but their own can have validity for intelligent people.  That condescending attitude is going to cost a lot more elections unless or until they change it.

You cannot debate a liberal when he is calling you stupid, uninformed, and a moron or idiot.

on Nov 19, 2004
Don't think that some liberals have tried to connect with Bush and his supporters, I know I have. I have never witnessed a liberal calling a conservative a moron or uninformed, but twice have I been told that I don't formulate opinions for myself because of my support for John Kerry. I've been accused of being a victim of the left's propaganda and accepting the first thing I hear.

You're right Dr. Guy, I don't see the liberal arrogance. Rather, I don't see the liberal arrogance anywhere near as much as the right's condescension.

Perhaps Republicans do, on the whole, traditionally make more money than Democrats, but I'd like to see the statistics as to how Republicans "are more likely to stay married" and "grow the most of the food". As long as were generalizing and stereotyping, wouldn't the "rich Republicans" be the ones out of touch with the middle class (majority) of America? Wouldn't the blue collar Democrats be the ones providing the labor for this country and farming the land? The way I read your article and the way it comes across is that the Republicans do everything good for this country. They tolerate the Democrats to do the "stately, proper" thing, but in a condescending matter.

I really like that Sorry Everybody site, by the way.
on Nov 19, 2004
You cannot debate a liberal when he is calling you stupid, uninformed, and a moron or idiot.

It is the same from both sides. But that has nothing to do with if you believe in Left/Right wing politics, I believe it is a personal character flaw from the person speaking. But anyway, that's about it.
on Nov 19, 2004

really like that Sorry Everybody site, by the way.

Why?  What have you to be sorry for?  If you are a liberal (and I take it you are), you did not Elect Bush, and hence have nothing to be sorry for.  If you are appoogizing for the 60m conservatives, then you are still in a condescending role.  No one asked you to appologize.  We offer none, and will make none.

on Nov 19, 2004
I like it because I think it was a neat way to put together a website. It's no secret that a majority of the rest of the world was against Bush's re-election. They looked to those who could vote Bush out of office and it didn't happen.

Not to mention I'm personally not sorry for anything, I'm not even old enough to vote.
on Nov 19, 2004
I think that it is just that you are a conservative and therefore sensitive to the attitudes of liberals. I have exactly the opposite experience. For a quick example, another current thread expressing a liberal perspective was met by this:
They are coming to take you away, haha, oh ho, hehe. They are coming to take you away. To the funny farm where life is gay, and people laugh and sing all day.

I find this pretty much par for the course. Both sides are so sure that they are right, and tend to have mutually exclusive sources of information, that both sides get a lot of objectionable responses.
on Nov 19, 2004
The right is always trying to pigeonhole liberals into the extreme left position. They are tree hugging environmentalist who want to take your job to save a flower. They are all card carrying members of the ACLU who want to have every decision in life decided in a courtroom. They want to ban the bible. They are tax and spend liberals despite the fact that Republicans spend even more. They want to take all your guns away. The right is happy making labels for Democrats because it can paint them extreme.

When one talks about conservatives the extremes don't come into play. A pro life candidate imagined to have blown up abortion clinics. A pro NRA candidate is not painted to have 5000 AK-47s in their basement and carrying at least five concealed weapons on their person at any one time. Since the era of Reagan, every Democrat is a liberal and every liberal is extreme.
on Nov 19, 2004
If you've labeled someone, including yourself, liberal or conservative, you're already wrong. Cubbyholes are for little kids' lunch-boxes. Just express yourself and move on.
on Nov 19, 2004
I have never witnessed a liberal calling a conservative a moron or uninformed

You haven't been here very long, have you? Or on this world very long either. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" the Daily Mirror asked in a Page One headline. Did you even look at the site linked? There are pictures of people holding signs calling Bush voters "idiots."

Another funny think about that website. After looking at the pictures, I went to the FAQ section to see what will be accepted and what will not. Here is what it said:
Why would a submission be rejected?Our criteria are somewhat subjective. We wish we could publish everybody's picture, but we have standards for quality and only limited server space. We will reject your picture if it is too hateful or hostile. We are about courtesy and communication, not insults and recrimination. You may hate Bush or think his supporters are idiots; we prefer not to give voice to such sentiments.

That is a total lie! Just look at the pictures. These are just a couple of the hundreds I found there.

One of the strange things I find about liberal villification of the Republican party is when they spout from one side of their mouth that we are the party of the rich. Then with the other side of their mouth they call us ignorant, idiots, and hicks. How did we get so rich if we are ignorant idiots from Hickville?

on Nov 19, 2004
I'd agree if Bush was a conservative. He (and his cheerleaders in congress, certainly not all the republicans are) really ain't a conservative or a liberal. Lower taxs (like a good conservative), raises government spending and federal responibilty (like a good liberal). Liberals tax and spend, right? Neo-libs like Clinton raise some taxs, lower others, and reduce government spending. But these neo-cons lower taxs and raise spending.

I guess what made the election so contentious is that not only did we have a president many disagreed with. Thats normal. But one that lied to the US about important things. And wasn't fiscally responible. Whose campaign was as dirty as the 2000 repub primary. Whose supporters would not unoften agree with Kerry more then Bush on the issues, or who were apparently living in an alternate reality (see ).
on Nov 19, 2004

Liberals use the courts to get their way rather than trying to get their way through the democratic process.

should there be openings on the supreme court during the next four years, conservatives will staunchly oppose all attempts to fill them with nominees likely to overturn roe v wade and prevent the states from enacting laws permitting their female citizens the right to terminate pregancy if they choose? 


But liberals have shown that they don't trust the will of the people. They use the courts. You want gay marriage? Fine. Make your case to the people. Don't go judge shopping

according to senators on the judicial committee, not since clinton's impeachment hearings have they received more calls, telegraphs and emails than this week--nearly all demanding arlen specter be denied committee chairmanship; specter survived only be backing away from his statement that he wouldnt approve supreme court justice nominees who had a pro-life agenda.  that's not judge shopping; it's judge mass marketing.