An interesting question arose the other day, and since this is a slow news week, I thought I'd ask it. . . unless you’d rather talk about Obama treating us like children? Or the Republican candidates finally starting to take off their gloves? Or whatever the heck Mitch McConnell was thinking? Or the lightbulb bill? Feel free to comment below. Otherwise, what I want to talk about is when did you finally realize that liberalism is a total cluster fudge.
I suspect most conservatives are conservative from the moment of birth, even if they don’t realize it for some period of years. Indeed, many conservatives report having an epiphany moment where the clouds broke and light shined down on them and suddenly they realized they had never been liberal.
But this realization isn’t usually the result of a political philosophy class. In other words, most people don’t suddenly realize their conservatism while reading about free market economics or discussing the role of federalism in limiting government power. Nope. Instead, the epiphany comes through real life observations, like when someone watches the post office mishandle a package and they suddenly understand that maybe letting the same people who crushed the box marked "fragile" run the rest of our lives isn’t such a great idea? Maybe it hit them the first time Uncle Sam took money they earned from their paycheck and handed it to people who never worked a day in their lives? Who the hell is FICA? Maybe it struck them that criminals really are the bad guys?
Personally, I was always pretty conservative. But my first big realization about the true nature of government came when I switched from private school to public school in third grade and was told, “don’t use cursive (which I'd learned two years prior), we haven’t taught that yet.” Great, so I’m surrounded by ignorance and your answer is not to lift them up, but is instead to tell me to lose skills so I fit your plan? I see. So, that’s how government works!
Then one day it really hit me when yet another of my favorite deodorants disappeared off the market to be replaced with a clone of "what everybody wants": the problem with big business, big government, big anything is that it tries to treat everyone the same. It wants us to have the same tastes, preferences and abilities. And it’s not going to let you be a square peg in its round world. Bastards. I don’t want some bland bureaucrat or gray-suited corporate chimpanzee making decisions for me! I want decentralized power! I want choice. I want freedom. I want a world that lets me be an individual, not a clone. . . and big government ain't that world.
Of course, all the other liberal stuff piled on too. Stuff like listening to privileged, rich black kids whine about being oppressed. Like listening to Patsy Schroeder (D-Boulder) do her best to sell America down the river during the cold war and then claim credit for winning it. Like watching Democrats try to tear down Ronald Reagan and smear conservative after conservative with outrageous and blatant lies and statements so utterly unconnected to reality that I had to assume they were joking. . . but they weren’t.
And I can’t take the hypocrisy and double-speak of liberalism. Riddle me this. If evolution means creatures evolve different traits in response to different environmental conditions, why are we supposed to believe there's no difference between humans from different parts of the planet? Why are we supposed to believe men and women are the same when all the evidence points to the contrary? If liberals worship freedom of speech as they claim, why do they love speech codes, thought crimes, and why are they so obsessed with stifling dissent? If liberals really want to help the poor, why do they attack the very people who provide them jobs? Ever notice that liberals don’t attack the idle rich at all (because they’re liberals) they just attack the productive capitalists. If liberals don’t believe in discrimination, why have they set up an Apartheid racial spoils system in colleges and government benefits? If liberals believe in education, why do they try to hold back kids who excel and trap poor kids in failing schools? If they believe in science, why do they require religious-like fealty to false beliefs and skewed data? Why doesn’t their belief that all criminals are victims apply to criminals they don’t like? If they believe in higher taxes. . . why don’t they pay them? And most importantly, if they believe in people, why don’t they trust us to live our lives?
Anyhoo, what made you realize you were conservative. . . or at least not a liberal?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
When Did You See The Light?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
I feel like that Jeff Foxworthy bit "you might just be a conservative if . . . ) Seriously , as a child, my paternal; grandfather would give me his Roosevelt dimes, and my dad had done a wonderful charcoal of him titled "the dirty skunk." I became more politically aware in high school during the Goldwater vs. Johnson campaign. Terms such as "you can't legislate love" seemed to revererate.
The interesting thing is, I don't consider myself an ideologue capitalist or libertarian. I just believe of the two main economic systems, I feel free markets are more efficient and fairer in the long run, so I want a government that favors capitalism.
Like you, I believe "bigness" tends to diminish our individuality, be it public or private sector. As a matter of fact, that may have actually been part of the thinking underlying "brave new world," whether it what the author intended or not.
Well, I already mentioned the other day what crystallized the issue for me, but like you said, I've always had conservative leanings, in the very basic sense of the word--I don't like change. That said, when I was very young and just starting to follow politics, I did have liberal positions on a lot of issues. (Abortion would be the exception; I hated that almost as soon as I understood what it really meant.) I was already drifting Republican by the time I entered high school, but 9/11 was what really turned things around. Not only was I instantly on board with Bush's foreign policy, but I really started reading the news and opinion columns after that and paying attention to the issues. So in a lot of ways, I would say my political beliefs were pretty much fixed by the time I was 15 or 16. I lucked out early.
I don't know about a specific "aha" moment for me. I was raised in a very conservative household, but in high school, I was wooed by my super cool kennedy worshipping history teacher and had some small left leaning social ideals, that our political leaders should be the ones to help us help the poor, rather than our religious leaders or our own charitable hearts. I don't know who said it, but I heard something like this once: "shame on you if your not a liberal in your youth. Shame on you if you are a liberal adult." I was solidly conservative before my first presidential vote. Some specific things that stick out to me in my adult experience are one of my socialist friends telling me, in her most condescending tone, "it's not the same thing, honey." when I used the analogy of grade redistribution compared to wealth redistribution. Another time was when I was working at a Jewish preschool talking with my teaching partner about taxes. I suggested that I feel much more charitable handing in my tithing to the church than I do on April 15th and that given the opportunity to keep some of my money instead of being taxed into oblivion, I would be much more capable and willing to help. Again, a smart, sophisticated lady said "the problem is that there aren't enough people like you." Nevermind the outpouring of money and helping hands whenever a diasater occurs...nevermind the fact that conservatives are overwhelmingly more charitable in their donations. Blah, blah, blah. Those are my "aha" moments. Oh...one more...I happened to be at a book club with a bunch of socialists on Dear Leader's inauguration day. When one of them said "He could do anything to me." it really hit home what a literal cluster fudge (as you call it) liberalism is.
I grew up in a conservative leaning family, but I didn't "get it" until College. It was when I had to deal with the financial aid office. I never qualified for any sort of aid and had to take out a private loan to pay for my education, yet, I had to go through the financial aid office on campus to get my private loan check. It was one of the most frustrating experiences in my life. After that, everything government related just irked me and couldn't understand why common sense wasn't used.
Jed, A liberal would say that you were brainwashed by your grandparents! LOL!
Interestingly, I don't think of myself as doctrinaire either. I prefer what works. And in my experience, government and bigness just doesn't work -- it is a very destructive force. What's more, I find that the left isn't interested in doing what works, they want to do what will give them power and I despise that. I rarely see that in conservatives.
I'm not sure what Huxley was actually thinking as he seems to have been on the wrong side of the spectrum and was attacking his own philosophy without realizing it.
What was it about Goldwater that attracted you?
T_Rav, How about repeating your point from the other day for the crowd as that was pretty interesting?
On the 9/11 thing, was it just that you supported Bush or was it also that the Democrats turned you off? I found during the Reagan years a definite combination. Not only did everything Reagan said made sense, but the Democrats would then gather together in front of cameras like jackals and attack him and try to rip apart the very common sense things he said.
And I'm not kidding, the things they said about him were vile and slanderous and stupid.
So from my perspective, here was this guy speaking just plain old common sense and then here was this group of hateful anti-American types who wanted to sabotage him in the name of pure insanity.
P.S. It's interesting that you equate conservatism with not liking change. I wonder how many people define it that way as compared to being left alone?
Tam, You've put your finger on two things that have always bothered me about liberals.
1. They are smug beyond belief. They think that their ignorant, uninformed, illogical opinions about the world are facts. They know things, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can possibly shake their belief in these "facts." And they act like you are stupid, ignorant, a fool, a liar, etc. for not believing their facts.
What's more, their beliefs are usually one-sided in that they only look at one side of the equation. In other words, they only see the good part of what they do. "We've enslaved people to build houses to help the poor... I'm great because I'm helping the poor." And when you ask, what about the people you've enslaved, they act like you're some sort of monster who just suggested eating children.
2. The cult factor. I have always found it creepy that liberals worship their leaders. They don't just want to support someone like Barack because they think they have good ideas, they NEED to fall in love with someone like Barack. Suddenly, you see them changing the way they dress, the foods they eat, what they name their kids. They literally treat these people like magical beings they need to emulate or consume and they will blindly trust them no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. That creeps me out just as much as when you see a show about some doomsday cult.
(continued)
(continued)
On the charity thing, that's something that bothers me a lot with liberals. They are notorious for not being charitable and for being bad tippers, yet they whine about how much they want to help the poor and then they denigrate the people who actually are helping the poor! How can you denigrate someone who is doing good things... things you claim to believe and want to do yourself?
On the Kennedy point, what's funny about that is that liberals will talk about their heroes like Kennedy and MLK and Jefferson, etc. Yet, they don't believe anything these people believed. It's like they just picked people at random in the past and said, "this is my hero" and then promptly ignored everything about them.
Andrew: Anybody who has read this blog for long knows my Road to Damascus moment came with the Clinton administration and Hillarycare, so I won't beat that dead horse.
But I will mention that I must have been a closet conservative much of my life and didn't realize it. When I was in Junior Achievement (extra curricular activity that was good for plus points on college admissions), our group was advised by a VP from Ford Motor Company. I made it very clear to him that I was a socialist (ah, youth).
Somehow, I was elected group treasurer. At the end of the first semester, it was time to decide whether or not to pay dividends on our project. We hadn't made a profit yet, so I refused to pay one. I was the only officer who didn't get re-elected.
The VP asked me why I wouldn't pay the dividend. It seemed obvious to me (and to him, though he wouldn't show it). "You can't spend money you don't have, and you can't pay dividends on profits which haven't been earned." He smiled and said four words: "Some socialist you are!"
I finally figured out why it took me thirty-two years from that time to become an open conservative. Liberalism is a mental disease, not a political philosophy. That Ford exec just happened to be my first psychotherapist.
Andrew, Excellent question! I've had many moments that confirmed it. I think the one that started it though was a liberal English teacher who kept insisting that we simply parrot back her beliefs whether she could prove them or not. She didn't care about truth or discussion or thought or anything, she wanted rigid conformity. That angered me and it taught me what liberals are really like. The more she spoke, the more I realized liberalism is a horrible thing.
Jocelyn, I've discovered that anyone who is exposed to dealing with bureaucracies when they are young will usually be shocked toward conservatism!
I actually worked for our admissions office in college as one of these "earn money for school" type scholarships. It was eye opening to see who they were letting into the school and with what scores and how they ended up doing in school. And it was eye opening to see how incompetent a bureaucracy is.
Andrew, okay.
For those who want to read the whole thing, it's down in the college athletes thread, but basically I was telling Andrew the other day about a bad experience my high school had with the state government. We were taking in students who were just beyond the borders of our school district, which you're not really supposed to do but everybody does it and just looks the other way, and we're really only talking "other side of the road dividing districts" sort of thing. And no one had a problem with it until our school started winning basketball championships with some of these students, at which point neighboring districts ratted us out to the state athletics board. And so officials came down without any knowledge of the situation, made some ineffectual snooping, concluded that some student athletes living in the district were not in fact living in the district, and fined the school. And like I said, this really helped to crystallize the issue of big government for me; if you can't trust a state capital 200 miles away to make informed decisions, can you really trust a national capital 2,000 miles away to do so? (The answer is no.)
Tam, on the quote, there's a famous version of that by Winston Churchill. "If you're under 20 and not a liberal," he said, "you don't have a heart. If you're over 50 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." (Of course, I never claimed to have a heart, but still...)
Also, does anyone know who won in California?
Lawhawk, "You can't spend money you don't have" -- you were playing with your life there! LOL! I'm surprised you weren't murdered in your sleep as a capitalist oppressor!
Liberalism is clearly a mental disease. How else do you explain something that wants to force people to believe irrational things and then base their lives on those?
Ed: Try reading my California blog from yesterday, including election updates in the comment thread.
Ed, I've often wondered if the fact that so many teachers are liberals creates more conservatives or liberals? On the one hand, you would think they would trying to make little liberals out of kids. But on the other hand, kids rebel against authority and liberals are not good with authority because they can't really explain their views in any way rational people will accept, i.e. they are the definition of evil authority -- forcing you to believe something they can't prove to you is right.
So I'm thinking liberal teachers probably spur more kids toward conservatism than liberalism. And then taxes, crime, and government does the rest. Hence 60% of us are basically conservative.
T-Rav, I'm glad you provided the answer... "NO" because I wasn't sure! ;-) (Just kidding.)
I think it's interesting that you grasped the problem with distant government from this incident. That is one of the biggest problems with liberalism -- it relies on big government sitting off by itself somewhere making decisions for everyone else without any idea what life is like.
Look at the minimum wage for example or how they define "rich." $250,000 will make you wildly rich in some parts of the country but isn't enough to afford a house in other parts. Yet, the left has now decided that anyone making $250,000 a year is now rich -- no matter where you live.
I am a firm believer in decentralized power with government being as local as possible so that people can choose to arrange their lives however works best for them.
Also, as I said the other day, your example provides one of the worst aspects of modern government -- people can use it as a weapon. In fact, it's become part of our culture that people will pick and choose the laws they want to follow (a symptom of having too many laws) and will happily try to exploit laws that benefit them to shut down competitors or interfere with other people's lives.
(P.S. Just to remind you, 4:00 pm.)
As soon as I turned 18, my parents had me register to vote Democrat. My dad always said that he didn’t necessarily vote just Democrat, he voted for whomever he thought would be the best person for the job. He was also Mayor of our small town for several years and that’s when I remember anything really political going on in my household (I was in jr. high and high school).
I was a typical teenager in that I didn’t really follow the news that much, but when Reagan got into office and the hostages were released, I remember thinking that the Iranians were afraid of what he would do to them. Unfortunately, I wasn’t old enough to vote for him the first time (I was 17), but I could the next time around.
When I moved from one county to the neighboring county, I registered to vote Republican just in time to vote for Bush, Sr. over Clinton. I remember thinking at the time what a slimeball I thought Clinton was and I didn’t even really know that much about him. He just gave me the willies. That was probably when I really started to follow the news and politics more and have more of an opinion.
Sorry, I forgot to put my handle at the end of my post above.
TJ
Ed, If it's California, my money's on the Democrat.... insane place.
TJ, I had the same thought about both the Iranians and about Clinton. There was no doubt that the rest of the world knew Reagan meant business and they stopped messing with us -- even with the liberals in Congress constantly trying to tie his hands and reverse his policies.
It's no coincidence that so much bad stuff happens overseas under people like Carter, Clinton and Obama, and it takes Republicans to clean up their messes.
On Clinton, I always had the feeling he was smarmy. His whole "I feel yer pain" bit really rubbed me wrong. It felt dirty and fake, like he was trying to schmooze us. Unfortunately, Bush made some huge mistakes -- notably abandoning Reaganism. And then Perot finished Bush off in the elections.
The one good thing to come out of Clinton was the Republican Congress which managed to make a lot of great permanent changes. I'm hoping Obama's legacy ends up being something similar -- strong Republican majorities who can reset the country back on the right course.
I'm glad you changed parties though -- I've met a lot of conservative minded people who grew up in Democratic places and just keep voting Democratic even though the party stands opposed to everything they believe. I have no idea how to reach those people.
P.S. TJ, As an aside, if you hit "Name/URL" instead of "Anonymous", you can write TJ as the name above your post.
I'm not sure how many people know that -- but that's how T-Rav keeps writing in with all kinds of weird names.
Anyway, you don't have to, but you can. :-)
I have told people for years that I am a conservative politically, theologically, and psychologically. (I dislike change! Esp. change for change's sake!!)
[I laughed as I read T-Rav's comment]
I come from a conservative family. My mom used to say she was a frustrated hippie, but she wasn't really (except for the clothes in the early 70s). The main exception when I was a kid was my yellow-dog grandmother. Now, she denies ever being anything but a Reagan-esqe, Coulter fan. (revisionist history is a hobby with both of my grandmothers) Anyway, so I always had that perspective. I began being politically aware in HS. I was mostly coming from a "religious right" direction then. My best friend in HS was as "Right" as I was. Then in college I ended up as a history/govt double major, and GHWB was beaten by Clinton halfway thru college. The govt dept was a pretty liberal group - but they were open to our rather vocal group of conservative kids that came thru in the early 90s. So, we would hang out in the office and argue about things with the profs (usually losing, but not sure why - just that we shouldn't have lost the argument). Then at the Kettle, a dorm room, or the Baptist Student Union going back over our arguments and positions. Crystallized a lot of things for me. And having Clinton in the WH helped too.
And then the real world!!!! Working my butt off for a pittance and having the govt still take some! And conversations with members of "minority" groups at my first real job - their feelings of oppression that wasn't based on any facts, just "I feel it".
And as time has marched on, lots of things solidified my perspective - discussions with my lib aunt who is an officer in the Teacher's Union, the media's spin on things, did I mention the "real" world? Oh, and Clinton!
my social positions are from my Christian perspective. But I am also a psychological peacemaker, so I tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. I nearly got tossed out of the pro-life group in college because I said that we need to take an incremental perspective on abortion - focus on the 95% of convenience abortions and allow the "exceptions" to slide. What's funny is that seems to have been the "successful" approach of the last 20 years.
It's been an interesting ride.
oh - and I don't like that Churchill quote - I was not a liberal as a youth, but I had a heart! I just had a brain too!
rlaWTX, Let me start with your second comment first. I actually hadn't thought about that, but that is an excellent point. I have never felt that being a conservative is the same thing as not caring.
I know the left loves to characterize it that way and some of the blowhard like to state it that way, but it's just not true.
So thanks for pointing that out, I genuinely hadn't thought of that! :-)
For shame, Andrew! That is a smear against my--I mean, T-Rav's--reputation, and I will not stand for it, and neither will he! And those names are funny and topical, not "weird"!
Thanks for sticking up for me, Guy Who Uses Weird Names!
Also re Ed, the Democrat won the special election in CA. Because it's California, and they suck (again, all apologies to LawHawk).
I was raised in a conservative household, with a very influential older brother. I can't lie - I toyed with vegetarianism in college. (Sob, sob, oh how it hurts to admit that!) But I came to my senses.
I'd say it still didn't really truly hit home in a passionate way until I was well into my 30s though. Once I had something to conserve, I suppose. ;)
rlaWTX, It sounds like an interesting ride indeed!
I used to argue with my liberal teachers all the time too, and what I found fascinating was that these people were the teachers yet it was very easy to trip them up... but they refused to see the light! The conservative teachers I've had were always open to new facts and new ideas. The liberals never were.
On families, I think they are a big influence. What's interesting though is when people break away from them. My father became a conservative because he's a hard worker and he didn't like the idea that the government was punishing him to support people who weren't willing to work. But the rest of his family are liberals. It's horrible. ... there ought to be a pill or something. :-(
And you're right about the real world. I couldn't believe when I got my first job... I was earning $3.15 an hour and had paychecks in the $150 range.... and the government was taking 20%+!!!. That turns you off the government very, very quickly.
Finally, on the race thing, that really angered me in college. I met black kids who went to exclusive private schools, whose parents were doctors and lawyer, and who were immune from being punished by the school administration -- which was never going to let a black student fail or get expelled... and they were whining about being oppressed! I can't tell you how angry that made me. My dad was Air Force enlisted and I grew up living in a trailer and these snotty rich kids were claiming that I had unfair advantages? Right there I saw the civil rights movement for the twisted creature it had become.
Guy Who Uses Weird Names -- I have been taking out of context! I have never been so slandered. I demand an investigation!
Alternatively, that's not how I meant it. I meant "weird" as in "extremely entertaining and funny." No insult was intended and no commenters were hurt in the making of this comment. :-)
T-Rav, Hey, some guy was just talking about you! LOL!
Why am I not surprised the Democrat won. I honestly have given up on California.
Oh, and for the record, so I don't get a "Rush-bashing Reputation" -- I agree 100% with his criticism of McConnell today. What the heck was McConnell thinking? It sounds like he panicked and decided to surrender. The Senate remains a real weak spot for Republicans. Let's hope the next election changes that!
Crispy, Ownership is the great conservative-maker. We should do all we can to get people to start owning stocks and property. That seems to be the best way to swing most people to reality!
Being an influential older brother, I congratulate yours! :-) Sounds like you had a good family!
And on the point of influence, if there was one thing I wished, it would be that conservatives would get out there and engage people more about their beliefs. There are many moderates who should be conservatives and just need that little push from a friend. Plus, it might even break the spell on liberals who right now think they live in a world where 100% of the public believes in them. That would be a good thing too.
LOL, Andrew! I'm sure you're a very influential big brother!
Hey, by the way, I haven't been following this much -- what is the deal with this Murdoch phone tapping England thing? Do you know?
Lawhawk, I saw your article and it had nothing to do with the election.
Thanks T-Rav, I figure the democrat would win. California does suck.
Thanks for the tip, Andrew!
I know what you mean about conservative minded people still voting Democrat. It's surprising how many people in my church voted for Obama. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.
It was Goldwater's book, ghostwritten by written by Brent Bozell, titled Conscience of a Conservative. That plus Lyndon Johnson was the antithesis of everything I believed in. Goldwater got his ass kicked so badly, it was not until that notorious liberal convert, Lawhawk, oops I mean Reagan, that conservatives regained their voice. I was only about 15 when I read it, but as I recall, if it had been a rock band, it would have been named "Rage Against The New Deal Machine." :-)
Andrew, thank goodness he was there to defend me :-)
On the McConnell thing, I'm not sure what to make of it. I honestly think he was trying to give Republicans an out by putting the onus of raising the debt ceiling on Obama and Co., but it clearly won't satisfy the base, and it could easily backfire, getting the perception of a political stunt. And the fact that the Democrats were so quick to jump on board makes me suspicious.
I like to think I was always conservative. I don't know about all you converts! LOL!
Crispy, Influential and handsome! :-)
The Murdoch thing is actually pretty huge. One of his tabloid papers has been caught hacking cell phone accounts of famous people (and people like 9/11 victims) to get gossip on them. This a serious crime in multiple countries and has already led to one person going to jail with many more to follow.
That investigation has in turn revealed bribery of the police, medical people and others to get information.
As the whole thing blows up, the question is becoming -- did other papers belonging to Murdoch do the same thing as some are now suggesting? It's the sort of thing that could easily destroy his media empire in Britain, which would likely cause him problems here too. In fact, I understand they have stopped a merger he was planning with a satellite provider.
It's a mess and I think it's only beginning.
TJ, You're welcome! I didn't know how many people realize that or not, so I figured I would mention it.
I know exactly what you mean about the Twilight Zone! I've had conversations with people who say they hate government spending, they want tax cuts, they want a strong foreign policy, they don't like any of the identity politics garbage. . . and yet they vote Democratic. And they always tell me, well our rep isn't like that. Yes he is! Plus, he's enabling the rest of the Democrats. It's very frustrating. How can people not see the obvious?
Jed, That's actually near the top of the conservative non-fiction list I'm preparing (part 2 of the reading list). It's a very influential book. And even though Goldwater lost, he really did lay the groundwork for the future -- a future which Ronald Reagan finally started to deliver on. :-)
T-Rav, Yes, you apparently have many defenders! :-)
On McConnell, I think that was his thinking. They could skip the whole thing and let Obama take the heat with each vote. But the problem is that's a political gimmick that I think the public is no longer willing to accept. We want something for raising the debt ceiling. It doesn't have to be a total reworking of the tax system like Boehner tried, but it's got to be something meaningful. This was the wrong answer.
Right now the negotiations are a mess. I have no idea how they're going to turn out. But I can tell you that while the media is suddenly discovering this "aggressive" conservative hero Cantor, I'm finding myself more and more turned off by the guy. You can't undercut the people on your side during a negotiation -- that's never good politics. I think he single handled gave the Democrats the momentum they had lost, which is what I think McConnell was responding to. What a mess.
We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! We love T-Rav! redrum redrum redrum redrum redrum redrum redrum redrum void where prohibited by law
DUQ, You purists! LOL!
Ed: Try again. "Including election updates in the comment thread."
T-Rav, Joel, et al: 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, the morons still can't get the results to the Secretary of State properly and efficiently. The Republican (Craig Huey) has picked up .1% on Hahn, but that's with only 10.3% of the precincts being reported. So rather than continue slogging through the incomprehensibly slow preliminary results, I'll just report back to you tomorrow morning on this thread.
T-Rav: The state now confirms your earlier figures. It's 55.4 to 44.6, with 20.7% of the precincts reporting. I'm going to put this to bed for now, and check again in the morning. Unless they find an entire city like Huntington Beach uncounted (like the Wisconsin mess), this doesn't look good.
36th Congressional District: Midnight at the oasis, and I'm going to put my camel to bed. The well remains dry. The Secretary of State reports that the preliminary result, 100% of precincts reporting, is 54.6 to 45.4. The margin had increased to nearly 12%, but then fell off as the evening wore on. Another dry well for Republicans in California, and a reminder that a people gets the form of government it deserves. But at least it doesn't change the numbers, since Hahn will merely replace her Democrat predecessor, Jane Harman. However, Hahn has more friends in the illegal immigrant community than Harman did, so that issue will only get worse.
Morning Update: The results haven't changed. If the Republican now picked up 100% of the uncounted absentee and provisional ballots, he couldn't pick up more than 1%. So District 36 remains in Democrat hands.
I'm a little late rejoining the discussion, but regarding the Churchill quote, I've always thought of it in terms of youthful naivete and idealism. Young people should be idealistic! However, once you become an adult, however you define it (age, responsibility, bills, ownership, attitude...) reality should turn you into a conservative. There is no room for fantasy idealism in a world that actually has to function in reality. I agree that being a conservative does NOT mean that you don't have a heart...as we mentioned earlier, conservatives are provably more honestly charitable both in funds and time/action (i.e. Michele Bachmann and her 23 foster kids). In fact, I would argue that being conservative means you actually have a heart as opposed to talking about how big your heart is because you would redistribute compassion through taxes to equalize generosity of spirit among all races, creeds, and religions except for whites and christians.
Lawhawk, So... the Democrat won. Well color me surprised. I repeat that large parts of California need to be sunk into the ocean.
(P.S. FYI, my e-mail isn't working, so I'm not blowing off your e-mails.)
Tam, I think you're right about the quote, which is why it never bothered me. But I also think rlaWTX has a point about the quote implying that conservatives don't have a heart -- which, as you note, is exactly backwards.
In fact, that drives me crazy that liberals claim to be compassionate, but it's always with somebody else's money they are using or somebody else's land or slot in college they are taking and handing out to make themselves feel better. That's maddening.
And you're right, there is no room for fantasy in the real world, but that doesn't stop liberals from dreaming up all kinds of stupidity to implement through government. And when that blows up, they come up with fantasy plans to fix their mess. And when that blows up, they blame conservatives and whine about how bad conservatives are for doing the things that are needed to undo their disaster. Liberals never learn.
Andrew: Sure, that's what you say. LOL
I did respond to your e-mail, so let me know what you think when it's up and running again.
I am disappointed by the District 36 results, but not entirely surprised, and certainly not shocked. I expected it to be a little closer, but as I said, at least we didn't lose a representative, they just got a different one.
Boo! We DON'T love T-Rav! He's mean to us and should be voided where prohibited!
Lawhawk, I will. Right now I'm not getting anything... very frustrating.
Yeah, it would be nice to win some of these, but it's really not surprising. I think the deck is so stacked in California right now that there just is no way for Republicans to win except in a handful of districts. What's ironic is that people still try to blame the Republicans for the problems in the state!! Give me a break. If there's a state more in the control of liberals, I've never seen it.
T_Rav, It looks like your violent past is catching up to you! LOL!
Wow, I'm drawing quite the attention! Thanks, my defenders! And to the kittens, please calm down. Come over to my place and we can settle our differences, and I can show you my nice gun collection, and...
"conservatives are provably more honestly charitable both in funds and time/action"
You are so right on that count Tam. I recall reading somewhere that if liberals and moderates would donate blood as often as conservatives, the blood supply would increase by about 40-50%. That just truly boggles my mind.
By the way Andrew, I like the picture from The Blues Brothers - that was a really funny movie.
Thanks TJ, It just struck me as the right picture! LOL!
On the blood thing, I hadn't heard that, but it doesn't surprise me. Most of the conservatives I know are constantly giving blood, giving cash and most have made themselves organ donors. The liberals I know rarely do these things... they talk about how great they are at helping others, but they don't do these things.
Can you believe it? Liberal hypocrisy. Who knew?
(P.S. Liberals are notoriously bad tippers too.)
Sorry this is very long, but it's worth the read I think.
Part one:
When I was growing up my parents would occasionally say things that would put them at odds with what I heard on TV or radio. What's more, they "seemed" to be the only ones saying those kinds of things. Sometimes it would embarrass me. After all, everyday there were messages about DDT, paint with lead, gas without lead, acid rain, aerosols, PCBs, and an indian on horseback with a tear running down his cheek. Heck, they even put Earth Day on my 10th birthday.
Now I loved and trusted my parents very much, but I often wondered why they had these views. As I got older, I realized they voted Republican. Although dad always said to vote for the best man regardless of party. He also always said "it was nobody's business" how anyone voted. Years later I would come to understand the complete ad hominem vileness of the Left and why he chose to keep his voting record to himself. I wanted to make my own decisions, but from what dad said, I couldn't really believe the media. I was at a loss for information. In high school I had a part time job at a library and talked to my boss about it. All he recommended was the finding of a copy of the Congressional Record, then try to figure out where I stood by politicians voting records. That was a joke to a high school kid because of the dry "lawyereez" way it was written, the fact they voted on a dozen variations of everything and one small volume was the size of the unabridged dictionary.
Part two:
My father was a WW2 army vet, my mother very passive and peace-loving (in the New Testament sense, not the hippie sense), and my older brother was one of the very last who had to register for the (Vietnam) draft. Dad didn't talk much about his war experience and when he did it was always the non-combat "fun" stories. So with my dad not saying much, my mother a ("blessed are the…) peacemaker and a brother who was worried about being drafted, I was not gung-ho on the military. A sentiment reinforced daily by the media.
Not long before my first presidential election, Russia invaded Afghanistan and there was a lot of talk that the US would get involved and institute the draft. I had become "aware" of politics (while still not understanding them entirely) during the awful Carter years. When Ronald Reagan became the Republican nominee, he was verbally attacked by "seemingly" everyone. Everyone but my parents. He was senile. He would start a war with Russia. He would further ruin the economy. He would… etc. Still, my parents liked him.
My best friend and I talked about this. We both knew Carter was horrible but were afraid of Reagan. Fortunately, there was a third party candidate named Anderson. My friend and I reasoned if Anderson were elected, neither the Democrats nor Republicans would pass anything he wanted and he would veto anything congress presented so we wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan. So I voted "Anderson" in my first election. Reagan, of course, won in a landslide.
Then a funny thing happened during Reagan's first term. NOT ONE terrible thing predicted about Reagan, or out what he would do, didn't happen. Not one.
In fact, lots of good, no GREAT, things began to happen starting with the American hostages held by Iran for more than a year being released practically the minute he was elected. And the economy improved. And he didn't blow up anyone! Amazing! I remember a genuine feeling of pride and optimism nearly everywhere. That's when I realized I was a Republican and voted for Reagan in his second term.
Part three:
In the early 90s there was an attempted (and failed) Soviet coup. Now I grew up taught to think/believe Russia was our mortal enemy. Here was an attempted overthrow of their government, involving the "Mighty Russian Army", which I thought should scare the hell out of everyone. I could just imagine ICBMs heading our way, but about the only mention it got in the media was the one minute top of the hour radio newscasts and some TV coverage. I wanted answers! I wanted to know what the heck was going on! I scanned every radio and TV station I could and it almost seemed ho-hum to the news outlets.
Then I heard some guy on the radio talking about it in-depth. The guy was cocky, a little bombastic and too sure of himself, but he was the only one really talking about this. I couldn't take him too much at first, but over the next few weeks, I listened a few minutes more each day. And not just about Russia, but the economy, polities, political correctness and the environment. This guy said things my parents said. He said things I thought. He said things I believed. He was national voice for ME!. That guy was Rush Limbaugh and THAT'S when i knew I was a Conservative.
USArtguy, Excellent story! I had a very similar experience with both Rush and Reagan. I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I was paying attention and it just shocked me how nasty the liberals were about Reagan -- who seemed to be a very decent man who spoke an awful lot of common sense. Yet here were the Democrats calling him a warmonger, a crazy old man, stupid, and saying he's senile, etc. etc. And then they started attacking all the things he said that were so obviously true. It was like being in some Alice in Wonderland world where we were supposed to believe things that everyone knew were false just because that's what the Democrats wanted us to believe! Plus, the Democrats just kept getting nastier and nastier, and they were lying through their teeth half the time.
And then Reagan put his policies in place and everything started to go right. The economy picked up, our nation regained its strength and confidence, foreign powers respected us again -- and all of this was done over the fierce and angry opposition of the Democrats. Indeed, their opposition went well beyond political opposition and well into disloyalty. They were literally wishing for our country to fail just to discredit Reagan!
I was furious. And that's when I realized that Democrats are not just good people who think differently, but they are indeed the enemy of America and cannot be trusted.
(continued)
(continued)
Rush was interesting too because back then the only way to get news that wasn't MSM was to read National Review. Then one day I heard about Rush and turned him on. I was hooked right away. He was smart, witty, funny and he was saying things you just didn't hear from the MSM. Then you start hearing how he's got 20 million listeners and "Rush rooms" started appearing all over town. It was great to see so many conservatives "come out of the closet."
What was equally interesting was how insane with hate average liberals went over Rush. They had 99.9% of the airways and yet they were obsessed with getting rid of him. The fact that someone who disagreed with them had a platform just sent them into these fits of rage and they started saying things that could easily be heard in Germany in the 1930s. They wanted him removed from the air and personally destroyed. They would “joke” about rounding up his listeners in camps -- seriously, I heard that many time in law school from liberals. And that's really when I realized just how sick the average liberal actually is. Before that, it seemed only to be the twisted creatures that ran the Democratic Party who hated America and everything about it, but the response to Rush showed me that their rank and file were also deeply infected with this same sickness -- intense, blinding hate of dissent.
None of this made me a conservative. As I say in the article, that happened a lot earlier. But it proved to me that liberals were not what they were portrayed as. They were not decent people who just disagreed about policies. They were jealous, selfish, hateful creatures who would happily see America fail if it meant they could get their twisted beliefs made law.
I started listening to Rush in the 90s too - there was a public access station on TV where I could hear him because I couldn't get the AM station he was on. I listened off and on for several years. but then I couldn't take the "omniscient" Rush schtick anymore. I still pop in on his show now and then, but def not a dittohead!
rlaWTX, I'm not a fan of talk radio anymore. When Rush started, he was brilliant. He was smart, funny and never took himself too serious. I could listen to him for hours because he was that entertaining -- as well as informative.
But then the other guys came along and they were deadly serious in their arrogance. I simply cannot stand these guys. And, unfortunately, Rush started to drift toward becoming more like them -- more strident, less clever, less well informed, and very knee-jerk.... things he had never been.
I still like him best of the talk radio guys by far, but I rarely listen to him by choice anymore.
usually if I hit talk radio at all it's Dave Ramsey. Then I go back to the classic or hard rock stations...
rlaWTX, I like Dave sometimes. My mother loves him and plays him all the time. She's a big talk radio listener.
I've actually stopped listening to music radio these days because I've got so much music on my harddrive, it's just easier for me to listen to my playlists.
Andrew, talk radio's hit and miss. I think it's best when you get a station with a mix of local and national programs; sometimes that helps keep them grounded. Unfortunately, that seems to only happen in the major cities.
One person I've been listening to lately is Dana Loesch, the Big Journalism editor-in-chief, who has her own afternoon show in St. Louis (not really in radio range for me, but I can get it through livestream online). It's kind of local for me, so I like it, and also she's been all over some of our state's own crap, like the Ken Gladney beating. There are one or two others I listen to sometimes, but like I say, hit-and-miss.
T_Rav, I'm just not thrilled with any of it anymore because it seems to me they aren't informing themselves nearly as much as they used to. Instead, there's a LOT of knee-jerkism going on and I just don't find that appealing.
Post a Comment