Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
How liberal and conservative hypocrisy is not equally dangerous
Published on November 4, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

What is it with left-wing zealots and the word "lie". It really gets under my skin. For liberals, it seems, conservatives never make mistakes. Oh no. Conservatives aren't, you know, actually human. And so whenever a conservative makes a statement that turns out to be wrong, it isn't that he was mistaken, it is that he lied.

Al Franken has made this into a mini-career with books like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Sure, other zealots on the left like him will eat that stuff up. But is it convincing? To me, it just makes ugly stereotypes of the left ring that much more true. The left certainly has no monopoly on hypocrisy. The right is full of nuts and zealots on its own.  Many charactertures of the right are actually true. I have actually met rich Republicans who pretty much believe that the poor should be liquidated (and I had this conversation in a hot tub in Grand Cayman with people who have never had to struggle or work hard for anything mind you).

But to me, the left's hypocrisy is more disturbing. And I'll tell you why: The left is the one that believes that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Name a social problem and the left's solution is to have the government solve it. And why not? Because they would love to run the government because they are, after all, more civilized. Where the right generally wants the government to leave them the hell alone, the left wants the government to be all encompassing. A benevolent parental figure. And that's the problem.

The left's view of itself is that liberalism is simply the more civilized way to approach life. Combine that with a healthy dose of righteousness and the power of the government and you have a recipe for authoritarianism.  Anyone who's been a student at a major university in the past decade knows what I'm talking about.  It is on universities that we get a taste of what would happen if the liberals ran the world.  You see, because liberals are more civilized, or more to the point, because conservatives are a bunch of evil, selfish bastards, they feel the need to play referee in the game of life. But they're not an impartial one because they don't recognize that other ideas may deserve equal time with theirs.

The net result is that all conservative actions are viewed by liberals under the most cynical of lenses.  Conservatives who don't support affirmative action on campus are against it not because they believe it is morally wrong to favor people based on their skin pigment but because they're a bunch of racists. Conservatives who favor military action in Iraq are not in favor because they understand what is a stake and concluded this is the right course of action, they favor it because they're war mongers or at best, duped by "The Bush Clan". And when a conservative statement turns out to be wrong, it's a lie.

Let me give you some examples:

When Clinton bombed a civilian Aspirin factory in Sudan during the height of the Monica Lewinski nonsense, his claim that it was a chemical weapons lab wasn't a lie. It was a simple mistake based on faulty intelligence.  Even though the timing of the whole thing was incredibly suspect and the target odious, that was pretty much the end of that.

However...

When Bush follows the same intelligence that Clinton did and assumes Iraq has WMD and calls for military force to remove Saddam for failing to comply with UN resolutions and said WMD are not instantly found (despite Iraq being a huge country) the result is loud cries that Bush "lied" about the WMD.  Clinton was in error about WMD when he attacked Iraq in 1998 but Bush lied. Huh?

It is a symptom of a broader problem. Clinton must have simply made a mistake because he's a liberal and liberals are civilized people.  Bush couldn't have made a mistake because he's a conservative barbarian and is only capable of lying.

Like I said, conservatives can be zealots too full of nasty habits. But there's a big difference -- conservatives aren't the ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force. Conservatives don't view the government as "Mom". Hence, the liberal's tendency for selective tolerance should be a warning to those who believe that in an ideal world, the government would be the one solving life's problems rather than individuals solving them for themselves, their families and their communities.

 


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 04, 2003
One could go through your article and swap the word "conservative" with the word "liberal" and the word "Bush" with the word "Clinton", and you article would be just as coherant and valid. Go ahead, try it.

Does this exercise tell you anything?
on Nov 04, 2003
Bah, not editing ability for "comments"...

OK, there are a few exceptions to what I posted above, but essentially it holds true. What I am really try to say is that conservative and liberal zealots are really two sides of the same coin. You often come off as a zealot in your posts.
on Nov 04, 2003
Call me crazy, but the conservative's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest, and most useless and inept bureaucracy in the history of these United States, along with the continuous attempts at eroding privacy laws and rights to privacy do little to convince me of the desire of conservatives to, in the words of right-wing zealot Grover Norquist, shrink government down to the point where you can drown it in the bathtub.
on Nov 04, 2003
============
Like I said, conservatives can be zealots too full of nasty habits. But there's a big difference -- conservatives aren't the ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force. Conservatives don't view the government as "Mom". Hence, the liberal's tendency for selective tolerance should be a warning to those who believe that in an ideal world, the government would be the one solving life's problems rather than individuals solving them for themselves, their families and their communities.
============

lol, come on. i mean no one disagrees that extremists suck and mistakes are always looked at in the worst possible light by the other side. but did you really have to tack on the 'our crappy bottom 1% is more idealogically sound than your crappy bottom 1%!'?

let's look at the last paragraph for example. i mean you basically compare the 1% of communists on the left to the moderates on the right.

ie:
the "ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force"
vs.
"individuals solving [problems] for themselves, their families and their communities"

one of these statements belongs on a propaganda poster, the other belongs is a campaign slogan!
on Nov 04, 2003
Abe - I don't know how to even respond to what you said. You either didn't read the article or didn't understand the difference. If you think liberals and conservatives have the same views then there's not much point in even discussing it.
on Nov 04, 2003
russellmz2: I don't think it's the crappy 1% going on here. Ted Kennedy and a good chunk of house democrats fall into this "crappy 1%". What about the nonsense at Universities now? Is that part of the crappy 1%?

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that this happens now. I'm only 20 miles from the University of Michigan where liberal dogma is enforced at the point of expulsion for having "incorrect" beliefs. Same thing at WMU where I went. This isn't theoretical stuff, this is stuff happening here and now.
on Nov 05, 2003
OK, let me try it this way...
------------------------------------------
What is it with right-wing zealots and the word "lie". It really gets under my skin. For conservatives, it seems, liberals never make mistakes. Oh no. Liberals aren't, you know, actually human. And so whenever a liberal makes a statement that turns out to be wrong, it isn't that he was mistaken, it is that he lied.

Rush Limbaugh has made this into a mini-career with books like "Insert Book by Rush Limbaugh Here". Sure, other zealots on the right like him will eat that stuff up. But is it convincing? To me, it just makes ugly stereotypes of the right ring that much more true. The right certainly has no monopoly on hypocrisy. The left is full of nuts and zealots on its own. Many charactertures of the left are actually true. I have actually met poor Democrats who pretty much believe that the rich should be liquidated...

But to me, the right's hypocrisy is more disturbing. And I'll tell you why: The right is the one that believes that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Name a moral problem and the right's solution is to have the government solve it. And why not? Because they would love to run the government because they are, after all, more civilized. Where the left generally wants the government to leave them the hell alone, the right wants the government to be all encompassing. A benevolent parental figure. And that's the problem.
---------------------------------------

Does that clarify my point or do you still think I am speaking another language?

on Nov 05, 2003
Brad, you're major dilemma here is that you're seeing everything from a bipolar political spectrum where it seems one is simply a "rightist" or a "leftist" and are both constantly in conflict with each other. However such a traditional political model (with communism on the left and fascism on the right) cannot accurately represent the realities of the population's modern philosophies. Many new models have been presented recently where they've attempt to more accurately classify people's political views such as the 2 dimensional Nolan chart or even the 3 dimensional Vosem Chart allowing broader opportunities and minimizing the generalisation of everyone into two factions.

The considerable schism in American culture regarding the conservative Right and the liberal Left can be attributed to many factors over its history but it is mainly due to a residuum of the Cold war where the Soviets would be identified as the enemies from the Left, thus sinking anyone who's philosophies would, on a left and right scale, be on the same side whether or not they were similar to the Soviet approach. This fear as remained embedded, consciously or not, in many's mentality where they see the Right as being the only democratic and "free" choice as Reagan pointed it out in a 1965 convention : "You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

As for your argument about liberal hypocrisy concerning the "lies" claimed, you should remember that the Democrats, as the opposition party, are simply attempting to capitalise off any mistakes seeming deceiving. The emergence in media attention of "liberal" author such as Al Franken is simply because he opposes the leading party's views, venturing on a controversial and argumentative grounds; often loved. The Rebublican and the "conservative" people do the exact same thing when the aren't in power (How many people called Clinton a liar after Monica?). It is nothing more than an easy way to gain popular attention and support.

A.K.
on Nov 05, 2003
"How many people called Clinton a liar after Monica?"

There is one large difference though when comparing this with Bush's claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clinton DID lie! He lied straightfaced to the entire country about something he knew absolutely all the facts about.

Even if Bush was wrong about the WMD, and even if he pushed for the war a little too much, he was STILL basing it upon intelligence recieved from others.
on Nov 05, 2003
why is that even worth a discussion? of course each side considers the other side to be liars. in the bombing cases it should be obvious that they either both lied or your intelligence services are a complete joke (what might be a possibility, a friend of mine recently made a vacation in Jordan and brought that idiotic deck of cards of the Iraqi leadership. guess what: half of the cards don´t have photos, maybe hey should have asked the Iranians, Russians or Israelis for help ).
on Nov 05, 2003
The Bolshevik revolutionaries on the left love to claim lies, lies, lies, this is their official battle hymn, everyone is a liar. The left like to portray conservative thinking as is brutal or repressive. In matters of police brutality they will view a horrible accident such as the case of Amado diallo as a police assassination when in reality he was reaching for something the cops didn’t know what it was, so they reacted out of fear, not out of desire to slay him. So the left was spearheaded by none other than Alexander “street thug” Sharpton,” to take to the streets screaming “41 shots,” without ever considering how dangerous and difficult it must be to be an police officer in an urban high crime area. Police brutality, Brutality in America! America has minor police brutality issues that the left want to distort into something that it is not, because it gives them a platform, if you look at other places in the world such as Brazil for instance, while the Brazilian people are a warm spirited kind, and they listen to their fun salsa music, many impoverished people living in a favela in and around Sao Paulo live in terror of police death squads, Alexander Sharpton the savior of humanity from police brutality doesn’t give a rats ass about them.
on Nov 05, 2003
Most on the right do not refer to mistakes on the left as lies. That was kind of my point. There is no right-wing equivalent of Al Franken or Michael Moore.
on Nov 05, 2003
"There is no right-wing equivalent of Al Franken or Michael Moore."--Draginol

Well, I can't really comment on that because I tend to ignore extremist propaganda no matter where it comes from.
Al Franken, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, that way right wing inflamatory blonde woman (no idea what her name is, saw her speaking on tv once, she made me laugh out loud, then I had to turn the channel in disgust), should all be taken with a grain of salt.

To point out that the commentators on one side of the extreme are worse than the other in some particular way is...well...trivial.
on Nov 05, 2003
Once again the youngins are misusing the word "conservative." Bush is not a conservative. Neoconservatism is NOT conservatism. People, please use the right words. Words mean something and to misuse them makes you look foolish. The Trotskite notion of "permanent revolution" that the neocons and their worshippers hold so dear is NOT a conservative idea. Any massive and intrusive government body like the Department Of Homeland Security is NOT a conservative concept. Calling yourself a conservative because you subscribe to the party line as deliniated in the neoconservative rags like the Weekly Standard, National Review and on their cable network Fox (Faux) News, is laughable. Real conservatives read Chronicles, the American Free Press and the American Conservative. 3 truly conservative, America First reads that I dare suggest none of the pimpleboys here have ever laid eyes on.
on Nov 05, 2003

It is strange how the left had no quarrel when Clinton ordered the use of 90 Tomahawk missiles on an aspirin factory, a bunch of ten dollar tents, and desert sand. Bill Clinton, he was so persuasive he could argue what the meaning of the word “is” is, but he couldn’t figure out what crime to charge bin laden with. A president who was caught red handed lying as he looked into a camera eye and denied an illicit affair in the white house, This is what they are applauding.
3 Pages1 2 3