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: http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/3/ 

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 4)
on Nov 21, 2004
"If you were to look at what the majority of Americans want in social, economic and foreign policy it would not be at either the far right or far left. The problem we are faced with is that the policies that the moderate and left want are ignored by the GOP in power. Thus our nation is not seeing policies- economic, social or foreign -that meet what the majority want. Polls during the election showed that 60 % wanted major changes in the Bush policies in a second term. 80 % wanted some change. If Bush pushes the things he has started to talk about, we will be just as divided in four years as we are today. Passing policies that only meet the desires of about 1/3 of Americans is dead wrong from the right or the left. We need to move toward the center NOW!"

Most of what you will see in legislation will be moderate as far as social issues. Don't let the campaign BS fool you. A lot of what Bush did and said in his first term was to pander his way into a second term. He gave away a lot of his "political capital" prior to the election so that others in the party would keep their mouths shut about the economy. Arlen Spector is the first example that has already surfaced, and if you follow house and senate proceedings on CSPAN you will notice that there a lot moderate republicans that are rather pissed with the White House brand of politics. I wouldn't doubt that we may see the republican party splinter a bit within the next political cycle. And if the pork doesn't start disappearing out of some of the spending bills the deficit is going to hurt so many people that many republicans on capitol hill won't be able to run fast enough without the door hitting them in the ass.

In any case ignore those who think Bush is the only one with a "mandate". The moderate republicans in the house and senate have bigger mandates because most of them will be running for reelection in the future. There are an aweful lot of people on these blogs that truly don't understand the political process, and haven't been around long enough to see the dynamics of pandering and to see that certain special interest groups get used and abused time and time again.

Thats why I find this whole left-right moral "dilemma" to be so ridiculous. Most Americans lie in the center but certain people seem to think otherwise.
on Nov 21, 2004
This sorry everybody site is right about one thing; they sure are sorry.

Why they think they need to apologize to religiously anti American countries such as France, Greece, Germany, and all the thugocracys of the world it is beyond me. I voted for what I though was in the best interest of my country, that's what I thought they did. If the so sorry, sad sack people are so concerned with another country than perhaps they should move there.

If Kerry won the election, would these so sorry kooks have opened a website congratulating the foreign countries that have opposed Bush; causing a greater loss of American lives in the world by refusing to help.

on Nov 21, 2004
If Kerry won the election, would these so sorry kooks have opened a website congratulating the foreign countries that have opposed Bush; causing a greater loss of American lives in the world by refusing to help.


Now thats an interesting arguement....while it is theoretical, it is highly probable given the nature of the left's venomous rhetoric that at times bordered if not crossed into treason....regardless if they know it or not..they do give aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war....but thats okay....these coffee-klatch "diplomats" who would rather try and "understand" why our enemies hate us, who feel its their duty by some "higher power" ala marx and lenin to denigrate our military wouldn't know reality if it bit them on their backside.....

To them I'm only a member of that famous "jesusland" living in New Jersey...go figure
on Nov 22, 2004
drmiller

It is you that does not get it. To be correct 50.9% voted for Bush. However many who voted for Bush want him to change his policies -80% have said so! In fact 60 % want MAJOR CHANGES! Just short of half did not vote for Bush- Hardley a ground swell! It is your attitude that has created and continues the harsh way the country feels. We need true compermise and movement to the center. That will not happen under Bush and the GOP leadership!
on Nov 22, 2004

Reply By: Don BemontPosted: Friday, November 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.

Don, that was not a liberal article.  It was a loony one.  Dont confuse the 2.  I have commented on many liberal blogs, but that one was just ET.

on Nov 22, 2004

um, 2000 anyone?
 

Sure, Gore took it to the courts to curcumvent the law.  The law was followed.

You dont like the law, change it.  Dont break it.

on Nov 22, 2004
Amazing: this post was just inciteful and hypocrtical as one made by a "left-winger" sadly this guy falls into the "right-winger" category. (Yes, you do: had you been more moderate as you claim you would have tried to find evidence that better supports your position than finding something "from small pieces" and building that into a "that is how the left [feel free to insert 'right' into here] does it" type argument. )

His making fallacious statements from the beginning such as generalizations which both sides use.

I damn well know not either side is perfect: both sides leadership make far more money and are subject to special interests on both spectrums than normal people who make sub 60grand.
Arguing one side does it worse is just frankly sad.

He brings out 1 site that is 'left-winger' (didn't visit it btw: no point since the right has just as many) and applies that to whole entire groups: both a straw man arguement and a hasty generalization.

Anyways, it's a great thing that in this country that if your a left-wing nut or a right-wing nut; you can still say or do what you want until you get in my face and I kick your ass.
So long and all the fish....

Wait up one more point:
Yes, it is arrogant for you to assume that you know better than another person; both sides do this as well. In the end you have to find out which party better serves you and this is made more difficult if you study politics as I do and realize that most people are not that informed.
THis doesn't make them stupid it just makes it easier for either side to appeal to ignorance or to fear monger or other methods of getting people to fall into line.

Those arguing against the court I seem to remember it was the court that fixed certain things people did not want to do such as stiking down some damn racist laws and then other laws that prevented women from having rights as men should. OUr system is supposed to be balanced: an executive to defend; a legislature to make the laws and a judiciary to make sure the laws (and executive orders) comply with the meaning and spirit of the constitution. The consitution does change or otherwise 3/5ths of a person would still be law today; good thing its not.
on Nov 22, 2004
Mercedes, if you think there's been any sort of equivalence between right and and left wing partisians in terms of spewing out hatred and anger than I suggest you get your head out of your ass.
on Nov 22, 2004

Reply #49 By: COL Gene - 11/22/2004 9:55:51 AM
drmiller

It is you that does not get it. To be correct 50.9% voted for Bush. However many who voted for Bush want him to change his policies -80% have said so! In fact 60 % want MAJOR CHANGES! Just short of half did not vote for Bush- Hardley a ground swell! It is your attitude that has created and continues the harsh way the country feels. We need true compermise and movement to the center. That will not happen under Bush and the GOP leadership!


You say *my* attitude has created and continued the way the country feels? I would tell you to go look in a mirror and listen to yourself *first*, before flinging any dung!
on Nov 22, 2004
The "I'm sorry" site is just an immature, pathetic means for the Left to stick out its tongue and make faces at the winners, instead of just accepting that they lost and dealing with it. They spent months indulging in their love to name-call and belittle us; why should it stop now?
Because we won? PASHAW!

It's so hard for them to accept their loss that on Nov. 3rd they all turned into Lyndon LaRouche and suddenly see conspiracies and dirty tricks everywhere, despite all the evidence that things went right according to the law.

No, I do not accept or back everything the president does, and that's my right as an American. I will (and did), however, back him because much of what he believes falls within my system of beliefs, too. So sue me. But then, they just might.....after all, they'd much rather use the courts rather than the electorate.
on Nov 22, 2004
Yes, the right brought down to your level seems to hate a lot more, guess I was just polite in not saying so draginol. Because if you can't even read the article beyond the partisan attack you cited which by the way says that republicans had participated in the same behavior; just in this case the crime had been to a higher degree. You mistate everything oh and on that note, guess we both made another error in our arguments. You took the personal attack response and in calling you a right-wing nut (didn't say nut but I guess you assumed I called you that) I did the same; which I'll apologize for now. But saying your moderate is definately a little off once you take a stance your partisan and when you attack the other side you fall into that category as well.
You say there aren't any equivalents look at history; newt gingrich was a bomb thrower in your party as he rebuilt the underlying structure after the republican party had failed to win for such an extended time. If you look far enough you can find evidence of both sides acting like assholes.
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass since you are definately full of shit. Once again, I'll apologize you sort of pissed me off & no doubt so did I; well back to writing my paper.
on Nov 22, 2004
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass since you are definately full of shit. Once again, I'll apologize you sort of pissed me off & no doubt so did I; well back to writing my paper.


And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see a flawless example of the liberal's propensity to resort to profanity when he/she has nothing else to offer up.
on Nov 22, 2004

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see a flawless example of the liberal's propensity to resort to profanity when he/she has nothing else to offer up.

 

Actually, when I saw it from Draginol, I snickered.  When I saw it from a brain washed supposed intellectual, it was just the play ground "nah, nah, nah, and so is yours."

Mercedes, you can tell the difference between Left wing hate and right wing criticism.  Your's is left wing hate.  We just point out your shortcomings, and that incites you to see red.

IN the ancient tongue, Amen (So be it).

on Nov 22, 2004
Excuse me, draginal offered nothing up and he pretty much told me I had my head up my ass so he went the profanity route I just elaborated.
let him who is without sin cast the first stone...
we all better be ducking...
on Nov 22, 2004

Excuse me, draginal offered nothing up and he pretty much told me I had my head up my ass so he went the profanity route I just elaborated.
let him who is without sin cast the first stone...
we all better be ducking...

The placement of your head is not profanity, just observation.  I suppose for the fairer sex, he could have used such nice terms as derriere, or tuckus, or even shadow hole.  is that better?