Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Americans Are Conservative

Every year, Gallup asks Americans to identify their ideology. And every year the answer is roughly the same. This year, as usual, conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2-1. Let’s discuss.

Here are the headline numbers as to how people identify themselves:

● Overall: 41% conservative v. 23% liberal
● On economics: 46% conservative v. 20% liberal
● On social issues: 38% conservative v. 28% liberal
Hmm. So what does this tell us? Well, for one thing it tells us that Americans still can’t stand being labeled as liberals, as only 2 in 10 embrace that label. As an aside, the number of people calling themselves economic liberals has been falling steadily since 2001, when it peaked at 38%. That suggests the Bush/Obama years have discredited liberal economics for a large chunk of Americans.

These numbers also tell us that Americans are much more conservative than you would think. What do I mean? I mean this: because of the herd instinct, which is alive and well within human beings -- with peer pressure advertisements being the most glaring bit of proof -- humans tend toward the center. Our culture actually reinforces this. Indeed, we teach people “moderation in all things” and “extremism” is considered a bad word in almost any endeavor. We tell people to worry about what society thinks, to try to fit in, and to follow the well-chartered path. This is so ingrained that both rich and poor people will identify themselves as “middle class” because they just don’t want to stand too far apart from the crowd. Moreover, on any measurable issue, trait or test, humans form a bell curve in which about 60% fall tightly into the middle with another 20% less tightly in the middle, and the remaining 20% outside on either end. That is the story of humanity.

And that means that if America were “a fair coin” (i.e. randomly distributed) then you would have 60% calling themselves “moderates”, 10% calling themselves “moderate-conservatives” and another 10% calling themselves “moderate liberals”, and 10% calling themselves “conservative” with another 10% calling themselves “liberal.”

But that’s not what we have. Instead, we have 40% calling themselves “conservative.” That means that in America, conservatives are 400% over-represented from what they should be here. Now, it's possible that Americans just drop the “moderate” portion of the “moderate conservative” and “moderate liberal” label, but even if we factor that in, then liberals are exactly what nature predicts -- 20%. But conservatives are still 200% overrepresented. And those extra conservatives have come from the ranks of moderates.

Here are my thoughts on this:

1. This means that conservatism is strongly attractive to Americans because it has yanked away 20% of the public from intense herd-instinct pressure and gotten them to abandon the “moderate” herd. Liberalism, on the other hand, has zero pull.

More than anything, this tells me that conservatives MUST return to selling conservatism to the public and must abandon being just anti-liberals. This is because liberalism is at its core-level of support and cannot be eroded further. Thus, tearing liberalism apart gets us nothing. Instead, we must convince moderates that they are really conservatives. And doing that requires selling our ideas to them so that they join the 20%+ of moderates who have already swung to the conservative camp.

2. We are very close to shifting the heard instinct. When enough people believe something, the herd follows. If conservatives can get above 50%, the rest of the moderates will follow because they are classic herd-followers.

3. This poll also tells us why conservatives need to keep making economic issues front and center. All conservatives need to win over the moderates to their cause on economic issues is about 1 in 4 moderates, whereas we would need to win 1 in 3 moderates on social issues and we face stronger opposition. Conservatives need not fear social issues, but economic issues are where their strength lies and that should always be the lead issues.

4. Conservatives have not yet done a good enough job winning over the public on social issues. I would suggest finding a new strategy to try to convince people that social conservatism works -- I’ll save that for another post.

Finally, I want to point out something said by Joe Scarborough. I don’t like Scarborough because he’s weak-minded and weak-kneed. He is the kind of Republican who is more comfortable as a Democratic-pet than putting in place his own ideas (assuming he has them). He thinks these numbers are generally overblown and he makes the point that even though the public is more conservative than liberal, he thinks conservatives don’t really mean it about being conservative:
“The obvious irony is that while Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists who are perfectly capable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, these same cowboys would tar and feather any leader who tried to curb spending on Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, defense contracts, student loans or any other part of America's $4 trillion budget.”
This has become a standard liberal/RINO talking point about conservatives and it really highlights the problem with RINOs. The conservatives I know, and their Tea Party allies, are actively trying to shrink all of these things. They’ve vote for politicians promise to cut these things. They even tried to stop the budget because it funded them. They don’t find any cows sacred. Only the RINOs and their big business friends are fighting to the death to defend these things. And liberals use this as cover to keep spending on their friends. This is where things need to change. Conservatives need to get behind proposals to slash all these areas and take away this bit of false cover. And they need to call out the RINOs who make this claim.

99 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

how true, Andrew. The herd instinct and anchor effect are a staple of the American landscape. Obama is helping since he serves as a constant reminder why they don't want to be economic liberals.

DUQ said...

Andrew, Excellent article! I think your conclusions are spot on and I think you're right this does show that conservatism really is a very strong force in this country.

DUQ said...

Jed, What is the anchor effect?

Kelly said...

OT: Is anybody finding this Polish thing as funny as I am? Isn't Obama supposed to be so bright? Yet now there are 57 states, Hawaii is in Asia, Austrians speak Austrian, and there were Polish death camps during WWII? What a maroon!

T-Rav said...

I'm pleased to see that social conservatism has ticked upward a bit in this poll, although there's no way to tell whether it's a momentary fluke or something more.

I'm kind of wary of polls like this, though. They're gratifying to see, but at the same time I wonder about how good a grasp people have of "conservative." Take fiscal/economic conservatism: everyone wants tax cuts, everyone wants the government off their back, but they also want free stuff from the government. It's understandable but it also makes me worry that the average voter's understanding of conservative principles isn't that deep or constant.

Sorry for the pessimism; I'm just trying to keep a little perspective.

T-Rav said...

Kelly, I guess that's what being a member of the "Choom Gang" in college gets you. :-)

But seriously, as HotAir pointed out last night, it's not like Poland is a longtime ally or a key part of our defenses against Russia or anything, so it's all good.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, The herd instinct will always be there. The key is to learn to exploit it. Advertisers do that with peer pressure advertisement -- "everyone else is doing it" and celebrity endorsements. The Democrats are good at it too by telling their people that they are part of a large gang.

The key is to convince the herd that the herd leaders ("the authorities") are all conservatives now. If we can do that, the rest will automatically follow.

Tennessee Jed said...

DUQ - the 'anchor effect' is similar to 'herd instinct' and can be described (at least by me) as follows: If you ask an opinion of a group of people and they respond verbally or in writing so that people get to see the responses of others before it is their opportunity to respond, the answers will tend to artificially 'anchored' around the first few responses. This particularly is true with organizations with a formal hierarchy or leader.

As an example if the question is posed "who do you wish to see be the V.P. nominee" and the first few answers are Rubio or Jindal, it is more likely that other answers will tend to cluster around those two choices. As you can easily tell, online blogging and commenting is a perfect forum for the anchor effect since a person can view the previous responses. The herd instinct takes over. Now I will say that our group here does a pretty good job (better than most) but we are hardly immune.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It shows that conservatism is way over-represented in this country despite a culture and political system which encourages everyone to the center. I think this gives us a solid bit of insight as well into how to score more wins. I think this tells us that selling conservatism is indeed the key rather than being anti-liberal because everyone who will ever be is already anti-liberal.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, Our president is an idiot. I guess it was all those years smoking pot with the Choom Gang?

In any event, this idea that he's a genius has always been an MSM/Democratic Party myth meant to make liberals comfortable and smug that they were choosing the best.

Tennessee Jed said...

Kelly - Obama as a 'maroon' L.O.L.

Andrew - see the show Mad Men :)

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - the libs love to trot out that B.O. was editor of Harvard Law Review, but zealously guard his grades and transcripts. Certainly enough to make one intellectually curious about it. My guess is, the day they have the very best forgeries the federal government can supply, they will release them down the stretch of the campaign as the economic numbers magically start to look really good (only to get revised downward later.)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I'm not particularly skeptical of this poll because the numbers have been so consistent and they pretty accurately reflect events and voting patterns.

Obama/Pelosi's economic policies (along with Bush/Pelosi's actually) have driven down liberalism as you would expect. Bailouts and stimulus spending simply don't work and the ideas have been disgraced. This results in the vanishing economic-liberal. Social conservatism has been creeping up slowly over time since a low in the 1990s.

The real key to this is what I note above about how different America is from "a fair coin." America is not distributed as you would expect. Instead, it strongly leans toward conservatism.

Now is that perfect conservatism? Hard to tell. People do seem to like their own benefits while hating others. But the problem with saying that makes them soft or anti-conservative is that it really makes them rational. I suspect people really are saying, "I'm not going to be the only one to give up my benefits." If that's true, then we could do massive across the board ("fair") cuts without people really getting upset. We just can't tell any one group -- you're first.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, True, we're lucky that Obama insulted someone meaningless. LOL! Seriously, this isn't the kind of thing which ruins the relationship between nations, but it does make Obama look like an ass.

So you're saying they weren't studying history when they were smoking pot? ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That's a good description of the anchor effect. In effect, it means that once people get a sense of what everyone else is thinking, they will naturally tend to conform their views to the crowd.

Now this isn't true of everyone, but it is true of most -- probably about 80%. And the ironic thing is that most of these people won't even realize that was how they made their decision. That's why this is such a strong tool for advertisers or leaders to use.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I've seen no evidence that Obama has gotten anywhere on merit. And I mean that in terms of he has released no grades, the things he's done all appear to be the result of affirmative action or others getting him his positions, and he's shown no personal knowledge or level of skill that suggest he's learned anything. To the contrary, he strikes me as a very wet-behind the ears, not very bright attorney -- the kind who barely scraped through but now thinks he's super-smart and has no clue what he doesn't know.

Doc Whoa said...

I don't like Scarborough at all. You're description of him as a democratic pet is 100% right.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I can't stand him. Every time I see one of his articles he's trying to surrender another issues. In fact, I can't think of a single issue he hasn't tried to surrender.

Doc Whoa said...

On the numbers, I agree that they really show the intellectual strength of conservatism in this country. Don't forget that the culture is strongly anti-conservative. So for this many people to buck that is significant.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, That's exactly what it shows. It shows that a huge number of people are actually bucking the best efforts of the media, Hollywood and the Democrats to paint themselves as the middle and paint conservatives as evil. That means conservatism have a truly strong pull among Americans.

Now we just need to enhance that a bit.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, this also underscores my ongoing assertion that conservatism actually is a centrist philosophy. Every political theory deems itself to be centrist, but America is the premier place for philosophies to compete to decide which is actually so. Conservatism is the return point between the socialist and anarchist flirtation that this country has alternately dabbled in.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's a very good point. A true "extremist" conservative position would be hard-core libertarianism. So maybe, Americans do see conservatism as being the centrist position, with libertarianism and liberalism being the fringes?

That would also fit the convergence of liberals and self-described moderates. Indeed, "moderate" seems to be a word used mainly by liberal who want to describe themselves to everyone else as being centrists.

It would be interesting to see this poll broken down further:

libertarian - conservative - moderate - liberal - progressive

I wonder what that would produce?

Doc Whoa said...

tryanmax, How did you decide that conservatism is the center? And not to doubt you, but why wouldn't that be true in other countries then too?

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I agree that it is rational in some ways, but with everything going on these days, I was hoping more people would open their eyes and see that this sort of thing can't go on. Oh well. One step at a time, I suppose.

I'm looking forward to the post on social conservatism. One thing that comes to mind is Andrew Breitbart's book, where he talks about his conversion from an early liberalism back to conservatism. It wasn't so much a matter of changes on a list of policies as it was coming to grips with reality. The people he hung out with in college--the pot smokers, the kids indulging in wanton sex, etc.--became increasingly unstable and self-destructive over time, while the values of his parents' generation--self-restraint, frugality, common decency--were the ones that helped him get and keep a job and get married and so on. Not everyone reaches that conclusion, of course, but it's something to think about.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, "the post on social conservatism." You mean the one I reference here:

Conservatives have not yet done a good enough job winning over the public on social issues. I would suggest finding a new strategy to try to convince people that social conservatism works -- I’ll save that for another post.

T-Rav said...

Right.

Speaking of Scarborough, he's most recently been mocking conservatives' attacks on Solyndra, saying that Americans "don't care about it." Twerp.

AndrewPrice said...

In that event, I shall see about delivering -- either tomorrow or early next week.

I can't stand Scarborough. I saw the thing about Solyndra and he's wrong. Tea Party people care as do most conservatives and a lot of independents. Only liberals don't care. But even they are embarrassed by it because the Republicans are using it as a great counter-attack to Obama's Bain attacks.

Also, contrary to what Joe thinks, the public can upset about these things. See, e.g. Enron.

But that's Joe for you -- surrender on every issue. If he had his way, the only Republican position would be, "gee the Democrats are great, but we'd like a chance to govern too."

ellenB said...

Oh, another good news post! I love these. :D

I think Americans are conservative because conservatism and common sense go hand in hand and Americans are very practical, common sense people.

ellenB said...

I'm also looking forward to your post on social conservatism.

tryanmax said...

Doc, I kinda hinted at why it isn't true in other countries. America is the premiere arena for competing ideas. Our First Amendment remains unique in the world. The PC police haven't managed to topple that. Americans may get complacent about their other rights from time to time, but the right to "say whatever I want" is deeply cherished.

The same is not true elsewhere. Most of the rest of the western world observes laws against "hate speech." Just in dealing with the PC types, we are familiar in this country with how anything can be contorted into an offense to those who are looking to be offended. Imagine if those people had the law on their sides?

Under those circumstances, conservatism doesn't stand a chance. Conservatism values responsibility, pragmatism, and truth. While these are good things, they aren't always pleasant. Anyone looking to weasel away from them is going to claim some offense--and they probably genuinely feel offended. In America, mere offense is no grounds for reparation, but in the rest of the world, it is.

tryanmax said...

Doc, also, I decided that conservatism is the center because it is what humanity always comes back to. It has gone by other names, but conservative principles are foundational principles; principles that work in all times and in all places. Build on them and you can't go wrong.

Take our latest economic downturn for example. We as conservatives know that a free market governed by enlightened self interest is the best, most prosperous economic model there is. So what went wrong? We got away from part of the core principles. We forgot thrift. Fingers can point all around, but the truth is that at every stage people were living beyond their means. The house of cards collapsed and now everybody is talking about austerity and saving and thrift.

They talk about these things over in Europe, too, but they can't get anywhere with it because somebody might get offended. That is why Europe, unless they get over it, will not recover from it's decline while America stands a much better (not guaranteed) chance of recovery.

That is just one example of many, but if you look at history, nations thrive on conservative principles and falter on anything other.

T-Rav said...

"I'm also looking forward to your post on social conservatism."

The popular demand is building!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks ellen! I think there is a lot to that, but Americans being common sense, and about conservatism being the political form of common sense.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, I shall see what I can do. :)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's probably true, that free speech ultimately leads to conservatism because it lets people expose the stupidity and hypocrisy of any other system. I also think in other countries, people have been bought off. They have been taught that the role of government is to take care of you cradle to grave. And when you start to believe that, then conservatism simply won't fit into your world view because you've already bought into a ton of contradictions and stupidity which stands directly opposite of conservatism.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's true about conservatism -- it works everywhere and anytime. In fact, it's the only sustainable system. All the other systems will eventually collapse under their own weight.

I think you are right that "we" went wrong in 2007-2008 because we got away from conservatism. I would say, however, that it wasn't just debt that was the problem. I think a bigger problem was government tinkering. The government began changing their regulations to encourage people to get into things they shouldn't have gotten into (homes and hedgefunds) and it offered a free backstop to whatever risks banks wanted to take. All of that encouraged people to take stupid risks they wouldn't have taken with their own money. And the result was bubbles followed by bursting of bubbles and a huge mess.

Unfortunately, the very things which caused the first crash are still there waiting to happen again.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The crowd seems to be on your side! LOL!

rlaWTX said...

Did they just ask people to self-identify?
Even doing that, it's an interesting result since MSM vilifies "conservative".
I think that an honest poll of honest (non-extreme, no spin) descriptions followed by that question would be fascinating.
[this was similar to my college stats project - self-identification and then do you support x or y; then comparing self-ID vs "actual ID" - I was surprised to find that people's IDs were pretty close. But college campus-based surveys have limitations. I think it would be very interesting now 19 (yikes!) years later - after all of the rancor of the last decade, and off-campus.]

As for "libertarian - conservative - moderate - liberal - progressive" - that would be more instructive, but then we could get into the minute differences that might confuse rather than enlighten. But I agree that "conservative" is more centrist than even cons think...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It was self-identified. And I think it's interesting too that despite the MSM and Hollywood vilifying conservatism for so long that 4 in 10 people (almost 5 in 10) adopt the label. That means conservatism has a very strong pull if it can overcome people's desires to "fit in."

It's also interesting that there aren't more liberals. Since liberalism is sold by the culture-machine as "caring" and "about fairness," you would think it would attract at least as many people as "conservative" does. Apparently, it doesn't though.

To me, this screams OPPORTUNITY for conservatives. This tells me that the country is ready and willing to wing right. We just need to finish the sale.

AndrewPrice said...

p.s. You're probably right about the confusion created by breaking it down further, but I think what it would likely do is smoke out most of the rest of the moderates who would suddenly drift into conservative/liberal ranks since they are no longer the extremes in the poll.

T-Rav said...

rla, I personally distrust a lot of those surveys. The categories are too simplistic, and the phrasing of the questions and answers can be very ambiguous. And if you aren't familiar with all the issues, it can throw off your "score." When I was a high schooler, I took one of those online surveys, but I didn't know half of what they were asking me about and just blundered through the whole thing. The politician whose policy positions I was deemed closest to as a result...Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton said...

Thanks for showing me love, T-Rav! We should hang out... be friends.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, certainly the government had a big part in encouraging non-conservative behavior. The folks in government were the ones who decided that deferred gratification isn't a good enough model for success and put it on its ear.

They basically tried to subvert Natural Law. When governments do that, then it should come as no surprise that people will take advantage of that. If the government found a way to subvert gravity, people would take off flying. Even sensible people who know it to be wrong would take flight with the idea that they will land before it stops working or stay close to the ground. That's what humans do.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav & Bill Clinton! What a pair!!! ;)
(you gonna Jimmah Carter for your play date?)

T-Rav said...

That. Is. Not. Funny.


It took me a lot of long showers to put that behind me, and now it's being dredged back up. Why do I even say things....

rlaWTX said...

and yet I just laughed myself silly...

but I am so sorry for traumatizing you again.

(please ignore the giggling - I am being serious.)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's uh... horrible.

I'm glad you've overcome your errant childhood.

AndrewPrice said...

Wow, Bill Clinton was here... soliciting T-Rav? Will wonders never cease?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's absolutely true. When the government steps in and decides to subsidize something, people will do it whether it makes sense or not.

I don't know if you saw this, but there is an article today about Spain dropping their subsidies for "green technologies" and the industry apparently folded up almost overnight. Surprise.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yeah, I'd need a couple showers to get over that too.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, There's nothing wrong with laughing at other people's pain. ;)

Patti said...

your analysis gives me hope in my still side-eyed view of how this election may fall out.

interestingly, in texas, a conservative newcomer, Dr. Donna Campbell, who did very little advertising, knocked out Elizabeth Ames Jones ( a media fav)for a run-off election with none other than Jeff Wentworth.

Oh, Momma likey!

NightcrawlerER said...

They must be going insane trying to explain this away at HuffPo.

NightcrawlerER said...

tryanmax, That's very insightful about conservatism being the center. I think it has to be. As somebody said above, it's based on common sense and isn't ideological for the most part.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Patti! I think these numbers are very encouraging, especially with a long-term slow growth of conservatism.

I heard Texas made some good movies in the primaries yesterday. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Nightcrawler, I would expect this will either be ignored or broadly dismissed on the left. They will probably talk about sampling error and then claim that "moderate" really means liberal, so liberals are in the majority, they're just confused about what label to apply to themselves.

tryanmax said...

Nightcrawler, I am very adamant about the idea, actually. I proselytize it. The only reason why conservatism is considered "opposite" to liberalism is because there is no name given to the far-righ philosophy right now. Without a name, most people assume it doesn't exist. And since conservatism stands opposed to all other ideologies, it looks like a dichotomy when the third contender is invisible.

T-Rav said...

Look, it is not my fault! They asked questions like, "Who is a bigger threat to the country, Jocelyn Elders or Pat Robertson?" and at that point in time I had no idea who either of those people were. So I did the best I could.

According to the scale, Bill Clinton was in the exact center of the spectrum, which made me a perfect moderate as well. Riiight.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's a good point and yet another reason to "establish" a fringe for conservatism under a different name, i.e. Libertarianism. That would give us something to balance off against liberalism and shift conservatism to the middle.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, T-Rav, T-Rav. //shakes head

So it all comes down to masturbation. Pro=Elders, con=Robertson. That's an interesting way to divide the country. LOL!

tryanmax said...

Andrew, under that dichotomy, Clinton was a moderate. He was in favor of it, but he still got someone else to do it for him. Compromise!

rlaWTX said...

tryanmax!!!
but a good description...

T-Rav said...

If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go build a time machine so I can go back a few hours and stop myself from ever mentioning that thing about the survey. No good has come of it.

tryanmax said...

I only took it where it was headed anyway.

Look on the bright side, T-Rav, in the other universe, you might not have posted it. Plus, they have zeppelins.

I wish we had zeppelins.

rlaWTX said...

be careful, T-Rav, those paradoxes can be tricky!

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, yes, but they also have outbreaks of bizarre diseases. And also Texas is broken up into multiple states. And I'm sure I speak for rla and all other Texans when I say that we're much better off with the Lone Star State as a single entity.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! Well played! He truly was a master-compromiser, wasn't he?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I wouldn't say no good has come from it. You've brought joy to the people of Commentarama. And that extends everyone's lives! :)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm a fan of zeppelins too. It would be a nicer world if we had zeppelins.

//sigh

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, What paradox? All T-Rav has to do is go back in time and shoot himself. I can't see a problem with it?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, On the plus side, California has fallen into the methane ocean in that world, so the break up of Texas is kind of a wash.

T-Rav said...

To switch moods and go completely OT for a moment, but I just heard NBC commenting on the violence in Syria and how the UN diplomacy team under Kofi "Oil-for-Food" Annan is wringing its hands that the dictator Assad "is showing no signs that he will step down from power." ?!?!?!?!?! He's a FREAKING DICTATOR! They don't "step down from power," especially when they're in the middle of shooting the people rebelling against them! And the elites in Washington, New York, etc. actually believe that Assad's regime is necessarily "on the way out," and that he has to face the music somehow and resign?! How can so many people be so dumb?

Okay, rant off. But it's truly frightening to see how out of touch many of our "leaders" are.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav, I'm pretty sure that Assad didn't answer the Monster ad under "dictator-benign", but maybe that's the only description good ole Kofi read.

Texas chopped up: I don't think that zeppelins and California in the methane sea make up for this. An alternate alternate-universe may be necessary.


More OT:
These quotes made me smile, chuckle, and think...
http://twayneking.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-american-military-wins-wars.html

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, They are stupid because they are liberals and liberals can't imagine anyone thinking differently than they do.

Thus, they assume if a leader kills his people, it's because he's scared or backed into a corner (not because he's a murderous bastard). And once the dictator sees that it's not making things better to kill his own people, he will stop. Because that is what they would do.

So all we need to do is promise to help solve the crises and said dictator will happily hand over power and fade into the sunset.... just like all other dictators before him.


Yeah, liberals are that stupid.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, "dictator -- benign". I'm thinking we really need to start a category like that on Monster. LOL!

Here's your link: LINK.

T-Rav said...

Bullcrap, that's what they would do if they were in power! They'd be killing left and right just like everyone else. (Okay, maybe just killing right, but you get what I'm trying to say.)

I know, I know; it just infuriates me to no end.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You were right the first time, they kill right and left... anyone who looks like a threat.

And yeah, that is what they would end up doing. That's what all dictators end up doing because that's the only way to stay in power as things inevitably start to go wrong, and even the "good" ones convince themselves that they can create paradise if they just kill enough people.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, I have to say I love the photo of the extended bell curve. I laughed muchly when I saw that one. :)

rlaWTX said...

I liked that too. I think I had some stats plot that way once...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's how all my lab experiments used to turn out in engineering school too... which is why I'm a lawyer and not an engineer.

tryanmax said...

Here's a thought that will blow your mind: What if our universe is the alternate?

Stupid liberals are so full of their "right side of history" crap that they not only think they can see the future, but that everybody else can, too. (Or maybe they can see the future, but they forgot about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.)

AndrewPrice said...

Didn't the Heisenberg spontaneously combust in New Jersey? And why is everything leading back to zeppelins today?

Anyway, to answer your question... if we are the alternate universe, then it is our obligation to become obsessed with destroying the primary so we can take it's place. That's my understanding.

T-Rav said...

Um, Andrew, that would be the Hindenburg, not the Heisenberg. (sigh)

Actually, I think our task is to make the other timelines as dark as our own. Which shouldn't be too hard. Step 1: Begin wearing felt goatees until we can grow our own.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Hindeberg... Heisenberg... tomato... sauerkraut. ;)

Ooo! I forgot about the goatees! I'll stop shaving immediately.

tryanmax said...

Boo, I would be wearing felt for the rest of my life. I grow just enough beard to require shaving, but not enough to have any fashion options. Can I just get by with switching my glasses to ones with more sinister frames, like some horn-rims that make it look like I'm constantly scowling?

AndrewPrice said...

Works for me.

Jen said...

Okay Andrew, you did it again. The subjects you come up with to write about blows my mind (and Tryanmax's comments as well). I couldn't stop until I had finished reading the article and comments. I hope you're happy (think about the time this was posted).

Anyhow, I typically DO NOT follow the "herd", they follow me. And..."They don’t find any cows sacred". That's right. If they make you mad, you can either sell 'em or eat 'em! LOL!

Sorry, I had to do that--couldn't resist. BTW, how did I do with the html? Thanks!

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, LOL! I'm glad you enjoyed the article and the comments! :)

In my experience, about 80% of people follow the herd. The other 20% are split between a small group who are somewhat malicious and then the rest who are true leaders. The ironic thing, however, is how many of that 80% are sure they make up their own minds independently even though they can't make up their minds until they know what everyone else is thinking. You would think that would tip them off, but apparently not.

Eat cows? Who does that? Oh yeah, I do. Yum. :)

(P.S. From your e-mails, I would be very confident speculating that you are not following the herd!)

T-Rav said...

Mmmm....cows....

AndrewPrice said...

God's tastiest creatures. :)

... and proof of God's existence, otherwise they would taste like chicken.

Jen said...

Andrew, "Eat cows? Who does that? Oh yeah, I do. Yum.:)" LOL!!!

You could ask my sister to verify that I don't follow the herd. She would say something like "You don't just follow the beat of a different drum, it's more like bongo drums", or something to that effect.

I do have some more interesting conversations that I had over the last few days. Gotta go for now.

Jen said...

Andrew, T-Rav. Yeah, I'm still here. You guys crack me up! LOL! And I do believe (without looking it up) that cattle were the first creatures mentioned specifically by name in the Bible.

tryanmax said...

Cows are natures candy. And pigs, too. Sweet, delicious pigs. Mmmmmm...

AndrewPrice said...

Yummm.... bacon, ham, steak, hamburger. Man, I'm getting hungry!

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I believe you. I think we have very few herd followers at Commentarama. We're kind of an interesting site because people here aren't afraid to speak their minds.

It wouldn't surprise me if cattle are listed first in the Bible. I'd list them first too... "And God said, 'try the beef, I'm particularly proud of that one.' And MAN WAS IT GOOD!" :)

tryanmax said...

Don't forget the cheese! And a fried egg. And more bacon.

AndrewPrice said...

I've never had a cow egg, but I do believe they are responsible for cheese... which is awesome!

Anthony said...

T-Rav said:

He's a FREAKING DICTATOR! They don't "step down from power," especially when they're in the middle of shooting the people rebelling against them! And the elites in Washington, New York, etc. actually believe that Assad's regime is necessarily "on the way out," and that he has to face the music somehow and resign?! How can so many people be so dumb?
------
Its not a matter of being dumb, its a matter of playing dumb.

People in power know perfectly well that Assad has no plans to step down, but no politician in America or any other Western (or non-Western) country is going to pay a political price for letting Assad murder his people.

They would pay a price for intervening though. Intervention would cost a lot of money at best, a lot of money and many soldier's lives at worst. So its better to say 'Assad, I trust you'.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think that's true. It's just a game. They play stupid so they can look the other way.

Post a Comment