The View From 1776

Liberal-Progressive Knee-Jerk Blind Spots

Reader Robert Stapler examines some of liberal-progressives’ off-the-shelf, canned responses and preconceptions which have little, if any, congruence with reality.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/22 at 10:27 PM
  1. Bob,

    I am not sure why you feels such animus against me (or against your liberal fellow citizens), but in spite of the dense forest of words in your piece, I could not decipher the answer to the original conundrum of who our allies in this fight are. Do we aid the Shiites or the Sunnis?

    In the interim since I asked this question President Obama has decided to embark on a program of bombing the ISIS (Sunni) radicals. This is understandable, based on their murderous and despicable activities - and our history of being the policeman of the world. But I am not at all confident that this will end well. We had "boots on the ground" in Iraq for ten years and at the end of that occupation nothing was achieved except thousands killed and maimed, and the wasting of two trillion dollars.

    Our Republican friends in the House and Senate are staying as far away as they can from suggesting any course of action or even hazarding a vote on this adventure.

    I don't know if you, Bob, have any more courage than they do, and can give us your advice on what, if anything, the USA should do about ISIS and whether, in general, we should favor the Sunnis or the Shiites.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  10:55 PM
  2. J. Jay,

    What animus? I love you heaps … just not your politics. I even introduced you as our “friendly” house liberal, implying you are welcome among us and ours is an attitude of acceptance as acknowledges you are not without some charm.

    We could, of course, ask you exactly the same question: what is your animus against us and our traditional values and viewpoints? Why must you ever misrepresent all we say, and imply we are “bomb crazy” when you know us to be no such thing? And, why do you insist on blaming poor old George Bush for everything from healthcare to Muslim hate-crimes (to use the liberal-socialist euphemism) to bungling in Iraq to economic woes, &c without benefit of facts or rationale to back such bogus claims. Your very first posting to these pages began with a lambasting of us and all things conservative, and you ever insult where reason fails you (which is most of the time).

    ‘Liberal’ fellow citizens? As I said before, there is nothing ‘liberal’ about you or your fellow travelers. This is purely a case of ‘identity theft’ and misdirection. Just because you socialists long ago hijacked a label belonging to the very folks you now oppose and oppress (supposedly in the name of doing better for them than they do for themselves) does not make you them. Nor does it give you and your fellow socialists any greater legitimacy that the term’s misapplication is widely accepted simply because the majority of people are fooled into believing you are who you say you are. It is classic-liberalism (the real deal) we conservatives and libertarians promote, and not that counterfeit which you peddle. If, instead of accepting this identity-fraud of yours, all Americans called you by your proper labels (socialists, radicals, willfully disruptive malcontents, usurpers, and nanny-state control-freaks) and refused to be taken in by such swindles, there would be far less acceptance of your misguided and divisive agendas. There would be greater political cohesion and civility among us, fewer openings for class-warfare (and other means of dividing us), and far fewer threats to personal freedoms. Within my lifetime, our political parties and politics (formerly differing only as to fine points) have become so polarized by your radicalizations and usurpations that our republic is now at serious risk of sundering along party lines, which something I never thought to see in my lifetime. That is entirely the fault of socialist frauds, harassment and manipulations. Whereas back then, Americans could put aside such minor differences, you socialists have so alienated us over what are petty issues and contrived injustices as has brought us to the brink of civil war! So, to answer your question regarding animus toward my ‘liberal’ fellow citizens, nothing could be further from the truth. I bear no animus whatsoever toward ‘real liberals’ (aka, conservatives, libertarians, and all others still having some regard for founding principles; i.e., the rest of us).

    However, against those of my ‘fellow citizens’ forever angling to bend us to their will (i.e., socialists) while pretending to a liberalism for which you/they have no actual regard, I am utterly and ever opposed and make it my mission to expose you however I may. To be more exact, I bear no ill-will at all toward the typical socialist liberal-wannabe; for all they are guilty of is ignorance and blind obedience to a narrative drilled into them from birth. Indeed, it is my fervent hope that my writings may reach some of those to pull the socialist wool from their eyes. Only the few who are both aware of the falsity and evils of your ideology and who predatorily and indifferently exploit it at our expense are objects of my animus. You fall somewhere between these two latter categories as you cannot be classed an oppressor (i.e., ruling-class, elites, bureaucrat with a license to harass, &c), yet neither are you entirely innocent regarding advancing this sick ideology. You persist in defending it despite you can no longer claim ignorance regarding its many evils; and, it is for that I single you out as one who ‘illiberally’ and willfully promotes socialism and socialist usurpations despite knowing its tendency to oppress. That you do this still, perhaps even honestly, believing its positives outweigh its negatives is irrelevant to your activism.

    You challenge me to show some courage, but show us even one instance where you demonstrated a similar level of courage (you who won’t even reveal your real identity). You, who dance around every question, have a lot of chutzpah demanding others do that which you refuse doing. You are like some drive-by vandal lobbing paint-filled balloons at the unwary; who then speeds off into the shadows. I have gone out on limbs many times stating exactly where I stand, what I support, and will or won’t do in a given situation. More than that, I have and have had the courage to refuse to join in the orgy of plundering you socialists want every American to indulge (thereby co-opting the unwary and naïve into furthering your corrupt, corrupting and morally repugnant schemes). Also, I have shown the courage to oppose Republicans when they too have been in the wrong (e.g., prescription drug program, TARP, scandals, conflating Islam with a ‘Religion of Peace’, reforms that encumber without reforming anything, &c). This is something you absolutely refuse to do with your own party’s leadership (i.e., hold them to account). So, while I don’t consider myself especially brave, neither do I think I have anything to prove to you on that score.

    No, there was no animus in my rebuttal of you, but that does not mean I will let your nonsense go unchallenged; and your frequent snorts, sneers and smears are in constant need of checking. Your complaint is rather like the unrepentant brawler who complains of police brutality when wrestled to the ground. If you get a little mussed in the process, well, you do come here picking fights so must relish it, and shouldn’t be surprised you get the worst of it in every exchange (though only as you provoke). I said in the beginning I was not picking on you especially other than as the liberal-socialist gadfly in our midst who, in common with every other liberal-socialists we have ever met, reads from the same stale and muddled playbook, resorts to the same obfuscations, invokes the same not-so-subtle insults as a substitute for reason, and never ever answers a direct question with a direct answer. If we had other socialists here with whom to spar, then, of course, we would spread the chastisement more evenly. Unfortunately for you, your fellow ideologues are even less brave than you in making the case for socialism, thereby rendering you the sacrificial lion. If you have anyone to complain of, then, it is your fellow socialists for failing to come forward; who while brave enough within your own circle of like-minded ideologues, are unwilling to risk honest and open debate.

    Obviously, you enjoy sparring with us else you would not keep coming back for more. I enjoy sparring with you also; and, if I am sometimes more acerbic than is my wont, well, so are you my contentious friend (and I mean that sincerely).
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/28  at  10:40 AM
  3. Bob,

    I guess I will have to stand in for the rest of the liberal community and absorb the slings and arrows that come my way. I think if you care to look back you will discover that my comments may indeed be caustic, critical and perhaps even a bit snarky on what I consider to be failures of conservative thought and policy expressed here.

    However, I believe I have been scrupulously careful never to call you, Thomas or Bill names or attack you in any way personally. (I don't recall Thomas ever having attacked me personally, and I give him due credit for that.)

    I, too, enjoy going toe-to-to with you and Thomas, and hope that our debate can be one that focuses on the merits of our arguments and avoid trying to score points by personal attacks.

    Most of the discussion in this forum is at a pretty high level, to which you have contributed significantly and deserve a lot of credit for your wide ranging pieces. I think that we can help strengthen the credibility of Thomas's efforts when we avoid ad hominum attacks.

    Best wishes!

    One parting shot (to keep you on your toes) is to reply to your assertion that the disharmony we all witness in the current stat of national politics is:

    "entirely the fault of socialist frauds"

    as you so colorfully put it. I couldn't help thinking of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who led the effort to shut down the government, and is almost universally considered to be an example of a polarizing figure, and one whom I suspect you would agree is contributing the dysfunction in Washington.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/05  at  10:09 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.