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 5)
on Nov 22, 2004

Reply #59 By: Mercedes (Anonymous) - 11/22/2004 6:55:59 PM
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...


You seem to forget this is *draginols* site, not yours. He can pretty much say anything however and whenever he wants. If you don't like that then don't read his posts. Simple as that.
on Nov 22, 2004
I happen to trust the average person to "do the right thing".

Sure the average person will do the right thing, but there are always extremes (either left or right) who will not do the right thing.

The problem with the American right is they judge the President by his words, not his actions. He has been fiscally irresponsible, leading the US to the brink of bankruptcy. The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was not WMDs or links to al-Qaida. It was more complicated than that, it goes back to Reagan. Reagan got the Saudis to lower the price of oil in order to make oil production less profitable for the USSR, which led to the economic collapse and fall of the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden claims that holding out in Afghanistan wore down the Soviet Union, but it was not enough in and of itself. So the US has been in bed with the Saudis since then. Both Bush presidents have been close to the Saudis. The Saudis became nervous about Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait.

There's another important bit of information. Oil has traditionally been priced and purchased in US dollars. This is very important, because other governments need to borrow money from the US to buy oil. Because of oil being in US dollars, oil consuming countries finance the US debt. Iraq was planning on changing over to Euros for oil purchases, which would be a great blow to the US (especially if other oil producing countries followed suit).

So the reasons were:
1. Nobody liked Saddam
2. The Saudis didn't like Saddam
3. Iraq was planning on changing over to Euros
4. Bush Jr had a vendetta against Saddam for a failed assassination attempt on Bush Sr
5. The impending world peak oil production, which now looks to be 2007
6. The increase in oil demand from China and India

The excuses (which turned out to be false) were:
1. WMDs
2. links al-Qaida

Now the US has installed puppet governments in Afghanistan (Karzai was a consultant for Unocal) and Iraq. The US has made friends with the Saudi government (but not the Saudi people, 17 of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi). All this to ensure the maximum oil production rates possible as we hit peak oil.

Are a couple thousand dead and tens of thousand wounded Americans, along with up to 100,000 Iraqis (depending on whose figures you trust) worth the invasion of Iraq? Does it really solve the problems? Bush focuses on the supply side of energy production, but the supply side will run out near the end of his presidency, and someone else will have to pick up the pieces in the ensuing economic decline. If the world is now hitting the peak of the overshoot phase of a population bloom-overshoot-dieoff cycle, America will be sorry it wasted its time with Iraq, sorry it elected Bush for a second term.

(As far as the voting, statistical anomalies in any election should be investigated where they could be significant to the outcome. Recounts should be required when the margin of victory is less than the margin of error or where anomalies such as poll counts being widely out of line with exit polls. This has not been done. We have a set of rules that were agreed to before the election, and every effort should be made to be sure those rules were adhered to. There is no other way to inspire confidence in the election process.)
on Nov 22, 2004
Sorry, I retract the thing about Karzai and Unocal.
on Nov 22, 2004
I have no problem with what Mercedes said. In fact, it makes my point I think. I point out that I think he has his head up his ass and he goes bezerk. The left is just brimming with hatred. If I don't choose to recount eveyr past blog I've written on this every time I post about it I think most people will be forgiven.

I've written on this topic substantially and if you look at the various articles, I've included lots of examples of left wing kookiness from this past year and it's pretty hard to come up with right-wing equivalents.
on Nov 23, 2004

Sorry, I retract the thing about Karzai and Unocal.

 

Glad you did that.  Your article has some truth to it, but not all of it is truth.  The oil prices of the 80s was part of the downfall of the USSR, but not to the degree you painted it, and that was just normal market pressure due to the Iran/Iraq war and their cheating on OPEC and the quotas.  Nothing sinister ther, and not due to any overt pressure of the US (altho Saudi is an 'ally', we exert a lot less pressure on them than the Michael Moores of the world would have you believe).

While I am sure there were other reasons that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, the simple fact was there was a real fear that he would poison the Oiil wells (so yes, for the conspiracy theorist, oil was a reason) with dirty bombs.  Not only in Iraq, but Kuwait and SA as well.

I dont buy Bush hook line and sinker, but by the same token, I dont see him as the great evil that liberals typically do.  As I have stated many times, if the democrats had given us a real choice, I would have voted for the choice.  That they did not means they still have not learned.  And that I am afraid is going to mean we will continue to get second rate candidates on both sides. O nthe democrat side because they are too arrogant to learn from their mistakes, and on the Republican side due to the fact they dont have to run good candidates to beat the democrats.

on Nov 23, 2004
The problem with the American right is they judge the President by his words, not his actions


Mighty presumptuous.

Reagan got the Saudis to lower the price of oil in order to make oil production less profitable for the USSR, which led to the economic collapse and fall of the Soviet Union.


The core reason for the economic collapse of the USSR was SDI (not oil).

So the reasons were:
1. Nobody liked Saddam


Especially the Kurds, Kuwaitis, Shia.... but executing 600,000 or so... what's not to like?

2. The Saudis didn't like Saddam


Eh, what's a few invasions among neighbors?

3. Iraq was planning on changing over to Euros


Why not use a common currency when bribing the French?

I think your post would be a bit more credible sounding if it didn't ring like a conspiracy theory bell. The only thing you left out was that the US attacked itself on 9/11 to create a justification for war.
on Nov 23, 2004
The left is just brimming with hatred.


I certainly don't feel any hatred brimming inside me.

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.


Yeah. I don't like anyone who try to polarize or divide the people. Wait a minute, I'm Left. I should be apologizing to the world. But I won't since majority of us Americans ( Yes, US as in all American voters in general ) voted for Bush. Those extreme left people in moveon.org should get advice off their own URL and Move On.

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.


Ken Starr and the Watergate were a major headache for Clinton. Cigar and intern, anyone? The news were pretty quiet, but in Clinton's book, 'My Life', it's much more major than we thought it was.
on Nov 26, 2004

Can't we compromise people. Some say the American left is arrogant and others say the American right is arrogant.

I think the obvious solution to this dilema is that both opinions are right, or to put it a different way, American's are arrogant.

They push there morality/democracy on the world because they 'know' what's best for the rest of us.
Half of Americans believe that statement and the half (along with the rest of the world) are completely disgusted by it.
on Nov 27, 2004
American's are arrogant.


If the world would stop coming to us to bail them out of jams of all sorts, maybe we wouldn't be so arrogant.
Our soldiers went overseas twice in twenty years to save Europe; we save Asia twice, too..once from the Japanese, the other from the Chinese.
Our tax money goes to prop up poor countries and governments that wouldn't exist without the influx of American cash. Our money and supplies go to help nations struck by natural disasters, epidemics and political strife like civil wars. We do all this willingly and cheerfully.

Start paying us back or go get screwed.
on Nov 27, 2004
American's are arrogant.
---mismos

If the world would stop coming to us to bail them out of jams of all sorts, maybe we wouldn't be so "arrogant".
Our soldiers went overseas twice in twenty years to save Europe; we saved Asia twice, too..once from the Japanese, the other from the Chinese.
Our tax money goes to prop up poor countries and governments that wouldn't exist without the influx of American cash. Our money and how many thousands of tons of supplies go, year after year, to help nations struck by natural disasters, epidemics and political strife like civil wars. We do all this willingly and cheerfully.

Start paying us back or go get screwed.
on Nov 27, 2004

Reply #69 By: Rightwinger - 11/27/2004 2:12:54 AM
American's are arrogant.


If the world would stop coming to us to bail them out of jams of all sorts, maybe we wouldn't be so arrogant.
Our soldiers went overseas twice in twenty years to save Europe; we save Asia twice, too..once from the Japanese, the other from the Chinese.
Our tax money goes to prop up poor countries and governments that wouldn't exist without the influx of American cash. Our money and supplies go to help nations struck by natural disasters, epidemics and political strife like civil wars. We do all this willingly and cheerfully.

Start paying us back or go get screwed.


Well and truly said. You my friend get an insightful from me.
on Nov 27, 2004
Thank you, sir. (ma'am?)
on Nov 27, 2004
They push there morality/democracy on the world because they 'know' what's best for the rest of us.


Sorry to continue on this guy, but this stood out to me, too.

There is a reason that we are the richest, most successful nation in the world, and that reason (or reasons) is our morality and democracy. They seem to have worked quite well for us in that respect.

Other, more "enlightened" nations that, for example, permit drug use and/or have open laws and practices concerning sex, as well as nations governed by dictatorships, don't seem to do as well as we do. Why is that? There's a lot to be said for morality, my friend, not to mention democracy.
on Nov 27, 2004

Reply #72 By: Rightwinger - 11/27/2004 2:17:45 AM
Thank you, sir. (ma'am?)


It's sir.
on Nov 27, 2004
The world does indeed love the umbrella protection they receive via the US military...while at the same time they stab us in the proverbial back at every chance....the best line I ever heard defending this country and it's military while putting the left in this country and round the world was Jack Nicholsons line from A Few Good Men,
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

The Left will never get it.....