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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 05, 2003
Ron Paul and Buchanan are Nazi's not conservatives.
on Nov 05, 2003
Only those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh would lump him in with Michael Moore or Al Franken.

Michael Moore WON AN OSCAR. Al Franken's book i sa best seller. They're not at the fringe of the left. They are right smack in the middle of it. I don't like Rush Limbaugh but there's nothing "extreme" about him other than he's a partisan.
on Nov 05, 2003
To Abe Cabbage:
If you are going to quote a post, and reverse the identities inside the post, what you are doing is "holding up a mirror" to the person who's post you are responding to. Therefore, that person must recognise him/her self in the mirror and believe that the faults identified about the people he/she posted about, also apply to him/her self. Simply reversing the names, and parties, without PROVING SUCH FAULT EXISTS IN THE PERSON OR GROUP THAT PERSON IS REPRESENTING IN THE POSTING, produces a fun house mirror, where the person posting doesn't see a reflection; only distortion; and gains a possibly reinforced proof of his/her views the opposition.

Conservatives do not wish for bigger government, do not look for a "mommy state", etc. and have repudiated those who officials lie, or seem to do so. Reference the difference in reactions/behavior to Trent Lott vs. Torriecelli (sp?). Also note the difference in the posts by the bloggers. What I am saying is, I don't see myself in the mirror, and therefore, your reversed post doesn't apply to me or other conservatives. I also believe that the liberals believe themselves justified in lying, "what is the defination of 'is'", "we must work up scary screenos", etc., while conservatives will remove those who "seem" to be lying (Gingrich)(Lott)etc.
on Nov 05, 2003
I know, I know - I said I'm staying out of discussions of politics - and darnit (dunno of the other term is acceptable or not ) I'm going to - and going to try to keep this comment as unpolitical as possible...

"Once again the youngins are misusing the word "conservative." Bush is not a conservative. Neoconservatism is NOT conservatism"

THIS statement has one major flaw. That is conceived perception. People who consider themselves "true" (or Classic, to vaguely make a Simpsons reference,) Conservatives may not consider people like Bush to be conservative. Congratulations. However, to a large percentage of the rest of the country, people on the left, right, middle, or wherever you want to place them, they /are/ viewed as conservative. They are representatives of what is currently considered 'conservative' to the populace. Conceived perception lends towards becoming accepted perception.
on Nov 05, 2003
I am a military veteran who was in the USAF for four years in the 1960s. My political views
have not changed much since then. I had middle of the road political views forty years ago,
and they are still that way today--- except, according the the "neo cons", I am now a
"traitor". I cannot stand to watch these lying, neo nazis such as Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan,
Bill Kristol on t.v. night spewing their outrageous, disgusting mean spirited falsehoods on
the American public. O.K., lets see how many of the "Super Patriots" were ever in the U.S
military? Answer, NONE! We'll start with poor Rush Limbaugh. He avoided military service
in the 1960s because he had a "spinal problem. I feel sooooo sorry for him. I had the same
condition when I went in the Air Force, and it didn't keep me from doing my duty.
All this shows me about this creep is that he's the biggest coward on this planet. Now that he's
been caught with his hand in the cookie(pill) jar, we're all supposed to feel sorry for him.
Here is a guy who has spent decades attacking liberals in the most mean spirited, partisan
way, and we're supposed to pity him. He disgusts me. O.K., next there is Pat Buchanan,
mister "bad knees", another lying bully. Back in the 1960's, when I was in the Air Force,
there was a guy in my unit who had two trick knees, which gave out on him right in front of
the Judge Advocate Generals office. Three officers had to help him up. I want the cowards
who use that dodge to explain their "bad knees" to my face. And finally, there is my "pal"
Bill O'Reilly. I saw him verbally abusing a lawyer on his show a while ago where ol' Bill
looked into the camera with a straight face and piously declared that he was going to take
the moral high ground. Tell me, how does a pornographer do this?
What ever happened to civil political discourse? BTW, if Ann (horse face) Coulter gets her
way and the right wing brings back the world of 200 years ago, the only job she will be
able to get will be managing the"darkies" on her daddys plantation. I never thought of myself
as anyone special, but after seeing this bunch of total hypocrites night after night, I'm voting
Democrat. To hell with the the neocons..
on Nov 05, 2003
Anthony R,
Here you are claiming that Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are "Nazis" and "not conservatives." That's a VERY liberal habit my young friend...and it is more than clear that you have no idea what Ron Paul stands for and are relying on 3rd parties to tell you what Buchanan stands for. Grow up and if you're going to act like a liberal you may as well proclaim yourself one. Buchanan and Ron Paul are among the few TRUE conservatives out there. You on the otherhand are just another Israel-first neocon poser.
on Nov 05, 2003


Ron Paul's decision to align himself with the terrorist enemies of America and Israel is an unsound policy that no true American patriot would participate in.
on Nov 05, 2003
This is strange, if you look at don davis's message he is clearly a liberal, voting Democrat, he boldly proclaims “to hell with the Neo-Cons.”

Next we have a message from American Conservative who declares himself a "conservative," he rips into me and calls me a “neo-con” poser. So who has the official rights to use this derisive term, and does the definition vary by party affiliation?
on Nov 05, 2003
The term isn't derisive to those who are neocons Anthony. The pseudoconservative Trotskyites who follow the teachings of Leo Strauss and go by the names of Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and Ledeen among others. Neoconservatism is un-American and a very dangerous philosophy. Real conservative patriots fight neoconservatism tooth and nail and if leftists or liberals want to join us, fine. We can use the manpower.

You seem to think that support of Israel is some patriotic litmus test. Where does that nonsense come from? It's support of Israel that caused the events of 9/11. The USS Liberty ought to have been a cautionary tale to ALL good Americans, the coverup in its aftermath ought to be the fire under us all.
on Nov 06, 2003
How wonderful it is to transform society into black and white; liberal and conservative; Christian and non-believers, etc. George Orwell had a wonderfully descriptive scene in ANIMAL FARM where the animals looked into the house window and couldn't tell the difference between the humans and master pigs. Rather than arguing the merits or negative of "liberals" and "conservatives," why not just demand accountability of those holding public office. Demand to know why taxpayers are giving Halliburton $2.65 per gallon of gasoline taken into Iraq and then sold for minscule pennies.....demand to know why troops in Iraq lack body armor, ammunition, water, food and other necessary items to wage war.......demand to know why injured GIs are on medical in barracks lacking basic comforts and languishing without proper medical care.....demand to know why over 300,000 Veterans have to wait 6 months to see a physican in the DVA health system.....point being, arguing about the relative merits of liberal versus conservative only occupies diverts many away from major issues and politicians know this tactic well.

CORRECTIONS: Pat Buchanan received a dishonorable discharge from college ROTC and was ineligible for military service. He goes to great lengths to avoid discussing this, but he was on obligatory service (final two years of college) and was technically on active duty as an E-5. Rush Limbaugh had an inflammed follice on his arse and took adequate documentation to his draft physical. The condition could have been corrected, but to do so would have meant induction. Bill O'Reilly came from a relatively rich family, graduated from high school in 1967, attended Marist College and then went to England to study at the same time Bill Clinton was there. He returned, graduated and immediately went to graduate school.. His disdains the Vietnam word and avoids it like the plague...it appears those who advocate moral values and benefits of military incursion carefully maneuvered around active military service (Tom DeLay, Dan Quayle, Rush, O'Reilly, George W. Bush) and now must prove their manhood by through blustering patriotic actions. Will end this now by simply saying "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. After spending four years in the military, two of which were in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion dying with and for my my buddies was inherently preferred than perishing simply to gain some politician's objective. Enough....get to the real issues rather the ideological blather....Take care.
on Nov 06, 2003
I love watching threads on American politics. They're sooo funny. As a non American 'independent' viewer may I say that I oppossed both Clinton's bombing of a factory in Sudan and Bush's WMD argument for going to war. I did however support both wars. The problem I see with America politics is that you're a two party system. It's so easy to gain popularity by villanising the other side. So long as one side is on the left or the right of the other is easy to imply that they're very far left or very far right. Much harder to do when real far left and far right parties are al;so in the house of representatives.

Both the examples given created disgust in the rest of the world. Clinton attacked a chemical plant on the basis on 1 single covertly acquired solid sample. No evidence was ever produced and the US unfroze assets as it could not prove and terrorism link. The US of course refused to apologise or make restitution. As Bush senior once famously said 'I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are'. Bush junior follows the same policy. Never admit mistakes. Never apologise.

It does not matter if an America president lies or makes a mistake. the results are the same. Suffering in some part of the world and never the chance of an apology.

Paul.
on Nov 06, 2003
"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."

You are wrong. You see he DID lie. He lied to the American public in his last State of the Union Address by using evidence he knew was false regarding the Weapons of Mass Destruction. And when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exposed his lies, people in his administration betrayed his wife who was working as a NOC for the CIA at the time.

The Bush Administration, since Day 1, has been based on lies. It's not even a question.
on Nov 06, 2003
I am gratified that some of you saw fit to respond to my various and sundry fulminations.
Yes, my views are liberal, however, in a fit of insanity, I voted for dubyah, and incidentally,
a republican governor, I can ,unlike O'Reilly, claim to be an independent voter. Also, I'm
a member of the National Rifle Association. The only thing I'm really for is truth.
This is, I realize, a forlorn hope. Q: how can you tell if a politician is lying? A: his lips are
moving. If I saw a democratic talking head doing the same thing that I see the Limbaughs
etc doing, I'd be on him or her the same way. I used, as part of my job, to drive a truck
across country, and the only radio in the truck was a.m. What I heard was Limbaugh on
station after station lying in the most ugly fashion about everything but himself.
Of course. truth is often ugly and lies are kinda neat because they tell you what you want
to hear. I listen to NPR, not necessarily because I like it, but because they have the guts to
present unpopular points of view. The problem with truth is that it is often ugly and we
should learn to at least consider what the other person says. This, in my humble opinion, should not apply to obvious lies. There is something called "critical thinking" which apparently
is a lost art these days. Thats enough for now.
on Dec 07, 2003
I read you guys and it is simply hilarious,you guys have no real clue do you. One guy claims to be the real "conservative" while he brings up the USS Liberty, the rallying cry of all anti-semites, while another pulls the look in the mirror garbage. Another brings up a select few republicans and show them there military records,as if that meant anything in the past, yet I saw none of them bring up the military records of the elite left or where some of there standings are. Another calls all republican leaders neo-nazi's. If they ever really wanted to learn where the real neo-nazi's are look to the left side of the aisle, its very illuminating.
on Dec 26, 2003
"The Democrats Have Made Lying Their Norm"

Posted by Gordon Bloyer


A Democrat claims that the economy is the worst since Herbert Hoover. No reporter says to that Democrat, ''That's not true.'' Why?
Reporters today have no background in history and they do no research. They seem to think when a Democrat says something it is an opinion, or just a point of view. It never crosses their mind that the Democrat is lying.
The Democrats running for president get away with saying that the president lied about the war, that we are in a recession, that unemployment is out of control, that we have the largest budget deficit in history, that budgets for safety-net programs have been cut, and that the election in 2000 was stolen. None of these statements are true--not even close--but reporters just let them slide.
Senator Joe Biden (D), Senator Joe Lieberman (D) and Senator Evan Bayh (D) have all said on national television that the president did NOT lie about the war. Why don’t reporters confront the other Democrats with their statements?
The fact is that the economy has been growing for months. A recession is when the economy is negative for three months in a row.
Bill Clinton was president from 1993 thru 2000. Unemployment was higher than the current rate in five out of the eight Clinton years. It was over 6% in three of those years. If the Democrats told the truth, they would say that we have the worst economy since Clinton. The fact is in the last six months of the Clinton years, the economy was headed down and continued that way for several months into the Bush Administration.
The deficit in dollars is the largest in history. That is meaningless. My debt is higher than ever, but it is smaller in relation to my income. It is the same for the deficit. The deficit in relation to the budget is not close to being the largest in history.
No programs have been cut. All programs have increases in their budget, just not as big as the Democrats want or dream about. Life is hard.
All recounts in Florida, including the newspaper statewide recounts, had Bush winning the election. In the Al Gore lawsuit, he never asked for a statewide recount. In the places where Gore asked for a recount the newspaper recount proved that Bush won. How did Bush steal the election?
Let me add these facts for the reporters. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter, inflation was 13.5%, interest rates were over 18%, and unemployment was 5.8% and headed up. How is that for the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? The unemployment rate under Franklin Roosevelt was 24.9% in 1933, 21.7% in 1934, 20.1% in 1935, 16.9% in 1936, 14.3% in 1937, 19% in 1938 and 17.2% in 1939. All of these rates were higher than three out of four of the Hoover years. World War II came along and everyone went to work.
One more thing: President Bush was NEVER AWOL. Get over it.
The truth about all of the above is available by doing research. Why don’t reporters do it? They have allowed the Democratic lies to become the norm.
Gordon Bloyer

3 Pages1 2 3