:1poke:

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes.

I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process.

Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally.

-spence

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

As you say, not every angry person is incited to anger by con talk. My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk. That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote. That again, is why I pointed out the Occupy crowd, but, on the national scale in terms of movements, political speech, partisan temperaments, what is the evidence that conservatives are angrier than liberals? Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard. No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

I like it. Some grounds for agreement. Gun nuts and tax freaks, even talk wackos--stereotypes to create wedge issues rather than true representations of conservatives or liberals. I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

I was thinking of Thomas Sowell's book "Intellectuals and Society" where he tries to make this point repeatedly. It's perhaps the weakest element to what would otherwise be an excellent book.

I do think conservatives have in the past had the upper hand here, although as I noted more recently, both sides seem to react today more to (often manipulated) perceptions than reality.

This I believe, is fundamental reason so many conservatives are troubled with the state of the GOP.

-spence

message too short

You mention that when you were growing up everyone you knew was a Republican and had the rural Bible Belt "conservative mentality." That's one of the paradoxes of present-day "conservative" and "liberal" monikers. When I was growing up in Detroit a lot of Southern Bible Belt folks migrated to Detroit to work in the auto factories. Most of them were Democrats. They saw American history differently than what was being taught in Northern schools-- Abe Lincoln was no hero to them. Their brand of "conservatism" was an antebellum code of states rights and white, Christian Baptist, racial pride--ferociously so. Most of the white people that I knew then were nice, hard-working folks, but racist--and Democrats. It was a different brand of conservatism than what we consider the political conservatism of today. Those folks wanted to conserve a culture that transcended political party. They may have differed heatedly on who to vote for, but not on their racist cultural views. Same for the rural Bible-Belt folks, whether they were Democrat (mostly), or Republican, they were culturally the same and they wanted to preserve (conserve) that culture. The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated. Today's true conservative is classically liberal. The political liberal of today, at least at the ruling and academic level, sees the Constitution as a hinderance to achieving a more egalitarian society which can only be achieved by force of government.

Aahh . . . my black brother . . . may we see the light together.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.

The quantum universe analogy is pretty deep. In the same way my use of obsessive was a bit overboard, your projection of what "classic liberal progressives want" is a bit overboard, no?

I don't believe I mentioned "classic liberal progressives." Never heard of such. If you mean classic liberal conservatives (I may have just invented that term, don't know), what they WANT is not overboard--Constitutionally limited government, devolution of power from the politicians back to the people. In terms of what they can actually GET--that may be overboard. Such "conservatives" are a minority even in the Republican party. Maybe the Libertarians are really these "conservatives." Maybe they exist even in the Democrat party. I see the Tea Partiers as this type, but, obviously, still being somewhat a nation of individuals, not everybody in any group is in total politically philosophical agreement. But there is a common thread that exists for group cohesion. Again, for those that I call classic liberal conservatives, that common thread is a return to the Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and its recognition that we are governed by consent of the governed not by consent of the government. If that is overboard, how so?

I was a liberal before listening to conservative radio post 9/11.

"conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially "

I hear this all the time from liberals, that Republicans are all in the pocket of big business. Zimmy, I'll concede that "big business" gives a lot of $$ to politicians, and that most of that $$ likely goes to Republicans. But please answer me this, Zimmy. If it's problematic when corporations buy political influence from Republicans, how is that any different from what happens when labor unions buy influence from Democrats? Labor unions also give $$ to politicians, and virtually all of it goes to Democrats. And when those Democarts reward the unions with insane benefits, that $$ gets confiscated from me in the form of property taxes.

Most towns and states in this country are crippled with debt from insane benefits promised to public labor unions (certainly it's a huge issue in New England).

So again, if you are concerned about Republicans selling favors to "business", why aren't you equally concerned when Democrats sell influence to labor unions?

"They invade Iraq for oil"

Excuse me? What oil? Presumably unlike you, I was there with a gun in my hand. I hear a lot of kooks say we invaded for oil, I'm just wondering where that oil is? We won in Iraq, so where is our loot? Do you think that all conservatives who supported the war, now all have their own oil wells? If so, where do I go to get mine? And if you think only conservatives wante dto invade Iraq, I suggest you look at the Senate vote. Those who wanted to "invade for oil" included right-wingers like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer...

"It is just different priorities, I guess. "

Here's the difference in priorities. Conservatives think the best way to help those in need is that for those who can work, to get a good job, with upward economic upward mobility. Liberals would rather expand their voting base by giving all these people welfare, which has the side effect of crippling these people for life. Conservatives want everyone to be well off. Liberals want poor people to vote for liberals, even if that means crippling them by making them addicted to welfare.

Another difference in priorities...conservatives don't want to leave our grandkids with crippling debt. Liberals seemingly have no issue with that, because I don't know a single liberal who suggests that we need massive spending cuts and entitlement reform. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a conservative suggests that the only way to fix this is to cut spending, liberals shriek "YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!" Liberals frame the issue to make it sound like all we need to do is tweak taxes on the wealthy, but the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to tax our way out of this (if we could solve all our problems simply by tweaking taxes on the rich, no one would be opposed to that). Conservatives don't like this reality any more than liberals do...the difference is, we admit the ugly reality and want to roll up our sleeves and begin the difficult task of fixing it. Liberals would rather ignore the problem so as to get re-elected. And leave the problem for our kids and grandkids.

Tell me where I'm wrong.