Robin of Berkeley says a funny thing happened to her on the way to the revolution
Robin of Berkeley tells her change story in this superb essay. Please read the whole thing.
Robin’s tale is somewhat different from mine. For one thing, she was a leftist, and I a mere liberal (and fairly middle-of-the-road as liberals go). For another, her conversion seems to have come, like that of Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, all at once and almost like a lightening bolt. Mine was much slower, taking place over a period of two to three post-9/11 years. And she’s managed to write about hers in one compact and graceful essay, while I’m stalled on mine after about 100,000 or so verbose words (I don’t know exactly, but who’s counting?).
It takes courage to change your mind about something so fundamental and important, and to face how wrong you have been in the past. Robin of Berkeley has found that courage, as well as the humility that goes along with it. Robin writes “astonishingly, I became a conservative.” That is really the correct word. It is astonishing to think there was something about you that was settled and would never change, and then to find yourself on the other side of the divide, never to return.
Because there’s no going back, you know; you can only go forward.
Your essay is great, Neo. You’re not “stalled”; it’s simply a longer story.
I’ve tried to get my mother to read your change essay for a couple of years now. Like you, she’s a therapist, and in fact she holds fairly conservative views, but unlike you she hasn’t been able to abandon the opiate of the MSM’s “news”.
Actually neo, it has been a pleasure to follow you and Robin. Thankfully you are taking different paths.
I think Robin of Berkeley became a conservative because she became a believer in a God other than herself. Alexander Hamilton nicely stated the core difference between progressives and conservatives: “He (Hobbes) held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe. (Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775)
Wait for it…it’s a hoax! Or so the liberals will say about ‘Robin’. It doesn’t sound like a sudden conversion to me. She already paved the way by making peace with her parents and her God.
I’m counting, Neo, and you’re not near done.
I really enjoyed Robin’s essay, but my experience has been much more like yours, Neo, only it started earlier, during the Clinton years. I gave the short and quick summarized version in this comment at Transterrestrial Musings the other day. In my case, there have been other complications, but the process only began to accelerate since 9/11, and even more so after an ill-fated relationship with a leftist activist type, which opened my eyes even more to the true nature of the characters who lead the Democrats. Maybe someday I’ll try to blog about these matters again (I briefly started a blog in 2003 but eventually abandoned it), but in the meantime, I’m content to read your blog (and others like it) and to chime in with a comment occasionally.
My conversion took place decades ago, when I turned up for grad school at Berkeley as an ardent liberal, looked around, and saw the reality of leftist politics. After three months of inner turmoil I became the fascist curmudgeon you know and put up with today.
Let me express my gratitude for your courage and eloquence and for that of Robin of Berekely.
I, too, am a conservative but my position was not the result of a sudden conversion. A child of FDR Democrats and totally apolitical during my coming-of-age years, I was not a radical or even a liberal while attending the U of Wisconsin-Madison in the 60s. Instead, by turns, I was bored, repelled and, finally, intimidated by my politically rabid schoolmates, many of whom were red diaper babies hailing from well-heeled New York backgrounds where they were raised to believe they were the smartest and best-informed of their generation. (Ungrateful brats!) I retreated into theatrical pursuits and unknowingly became a mascot for my lefty friends.
Decades later, I had a political awakening when an ultra liberal friend suggested Wm Buckley’s sailing books as a summertime diversion (though she hated his politics!) A few paragraphs into just one book and I was home. I had embarked on the most intellectually exciting and morally strengthening adventure of my life. I’ve never looked back, though the change was gradual. Only recently have I become more vocal about my politics, which my friends in the arts and education dismiss as another of my eccentricities. There is still fear in my heart about too much exposure, however, as I must rely on social acceptance for employment opportunities.
Fear is the operative word here. Can outrage and anger overcome the fear of reprisals that keep so many, especially now those in the medical field, from speaking out and taking action?
Blogs like yours bolster me, but I’m ashamed to admit I still don’t have the spine to sign on to the tea party movement in my area, though I whole-heartedly support its objectives. I know I’m not alone. Will there soon be a tipping point that makes such fears irrelevant?
God help us all.
Jenna, I do believe you have identified a major but unspoken difficulty: the threat to one’s employment due to their political views. You, and many others, have effectively experienced a loss of liberty.
I know a man and his wife who got out of communist Czechoslovakia. He told me the day he decided to resist and strive for freedom was the day a “ball” of fear in his stomach left. He made it to Amercia. Now, he flies the “Don’t tread on me flag.” You can resist with facts, a life that will be viewed by your peers, and your vote. Perhaps even monies to the right causes.
I continue to be amazed by my friends of the 60s who hold political beliefs that fossilized in 1969. Of course, when they had children they changed their minds about using drugs, having sex with anyone who walked in the door and the evils of private property. But until they are mugged by reality they will support politicians like Obama who play the populist tune while using political tactics right out of Mr. Daley’s neighborhood.
So what?
to come around after the destruction is easy
to be so full of false faith that no one can show you what your doing and that it takes the destruction of all you hold dear before you wake up?
such people are more than useless, they are toxic
they are also reckless, and feckless
no cheering from me that it took so much harm and damage and misery (i am including the future), to get her to wake up and change sides.
but the sad thing is that those that come behind her, that came behind Dodd, and other defectors who explained things over the past 100 years.
all she is doing is telling the left what they already know. that an older person is no longer useful to them, ergo the worship of the young, and the incessant use of womens vanity against them (and through them, us).
want to read the books of lots of people like her?
the term from the old days was
too little way too late is the same as nothing
the yong will overthrow the old in favor of manipulative old people using them.
ever notice the average age?
age and treachery always outdoes youth and enthusiasm.
just ask william wallace
Art, dude…
Why are you hear??
We have ALL (including you) been reckless at times.
We learn.
No need to bash people on the head about it.
Art wrote:
such people are more than useless, they are toxic
they are also reckless, and feckless
no cheering from me that it took so much harm and damage and misery (i am including the future), to get her to wake up and change sides.
Yep… I suppose in 1994 people could’ve looked at my conversion in 1991 and said the same thing.
Well, I applaud it EACH AND EVERY TIME Art. Each and every time.
And so does Jesus.
Artfldgr: not sure whether it makes any difference to you, but I am fairly certain that Robin changed before Obama’s election, during the campaign.
I believe that all such defections are very valuable. I continue to believe all is not lost. If an overwhelming majority of the liberals in America had such a conversion experience this very minute, that would go a long way towards changing things in 2010 and beyond.
Baklava: I was posting at the same time as you, with a similar thought.
jenna: You nailed it in describing my own experience when you wrote, “I had embarked on the most intellectually exciting and morally strengthening adventure of my life.”
You are also somewhat fortunate in that your friends dismiss your politics as one of your eccentricities. Some of mine do the same, but some don’t. But it’s sad that they don’t think more deeply about it.
Good luck with your coming out. I don’t mean to pressure you, but you might want to read this. Of course, it is more difficult to come out when it has financial and professional repercussions. How sad that is, as well—liberals can be the least open-minded people on earth, and they’re the last to think so.
Jenna nailed it for me too, especially the part about being afraid to speak up for professional reasons. I’m a writer, married to an academic. He is a philosopher (there are such creatures) and that profession is still pure enough so that he can feel free to be open — he meets with arguments, not shunning. But I know better than to risk it with writers.
At bottom, what I want is the freedom to be apolitical. This is essential for a writer. But being apolitical is itself a political position, according to the left. It puts one on the right.
People need intellectual epiphanies in college to wake them up to the real world? I was beaten up again and again in the third grade, that opened my eyes about the natural decency of men.
Only thing of any value I got out of my early school years now that I look back.
Yes, I’d agree with Jenna on that point, too, and Mizpants and Neo, too. I work in academia–in administration at a public university. There are some open and out conservatives on the faculty, but the most well-known one is actually a rather moderate Republican. I know him from committee work, where I present myself as an apolitical moderate, but where, as luck would have it, I seem to agree with him much of the time. The office where I work used to be rather mixed politically, but in the past four years, it became predominantly left-leaning in orientation.
Then again, I’m not out in most ways. I’m also gay, and only out to a few friends. The gay “community,” such as it is, is so dominated by such intolerant and reactionary leftists that I’m in no hurry to risk rejection by family or some friends only to be rejected, in turn by the strident leftists who aspire to determine what are the only acceptable views that can be held by those of a particular sexual orientation.
So instead, I’m mostly apolitical at work and I also seem to be asexual to most people, as I don’t talk about relationships with anyone at work or with most but a few close friends.
Almost every line in Artfldgr’s post is untrue. And I can’t understand such an uncharitable position from Artfldgr that declines into near unintelligible ramblings. I think, Artfldgr, you’re much better at providing facts.
Robin of Berkeley’s posts in American Thinker have added a very valuable and popular dimension to AT. It did not take the destruction of everything dear for Robin’s changes; and she’s not talking to the left but to anyone who cares to read her posts.
I’ve read, from day one, every single post. Her trenchant and pithy one-liners remind of G.K. Chesterton. She has a perspective that is far, far from “so what.” And she exemplifies repentance, a gift from God to man that anyone at anytime may choose life.
I think the main point is that we’re trying to (ahem) win hearts and minds; disparaging those who come around for not having done so earlier is counterproductive.
To Bob’s point, I grew up in a very tough neighborhood in SF (subsequently bulldozed, if that tells you anything), where we fought all the time. I found that the way to minimize the fighting (but, unfortunately, not eliminate it entirely) was to be known as someone who 1) didn’t pick fights, but 2) invariably fought back if challenged, and 3) was sufficiently formidable to be a risky choice of adversary.
Guys who tried to escape by being as meek, innocuous, accomodating, and deferential as possible got their asses kicked all the time.
Good life lesson buried in there. Anyone who thinks human nature is basically good would have learned different PDQ in Hunter’s Point.
I’m at the point where I cannot knowingly put any money (not even one nickle) into the pockets of anyone that I can confirm supported this regime. Nor can I stomach going to social gatherings with Obamites. Not any longer. In my life this means changing tax specialists, snow plowers, and a host of other professionals and working men / women that I have paid for services well done over the years. It means finding creative ways to opt out on dinners and other social type gatherings with neighbors and colleagues. It might be that I could help change a few minds if I didn’t take this attitude, but I am so angry with all of them at the moment that I just don’t feel like doing that hard work.
Occam’s Beard: Yes, Hunter’s Point has long had a certain reputation. Good to hear that someone got out of it intact.
Gringo, yeah, more or less intact. And I can testify that Hunter’s Point’s rep is richly deserved.
I am rough since most people could have known before they were born! meaning that the history of the late 1800s through Hayes, Woodrow Wilson, Coleridge, to FDR etc.
i am rough on her for a reason…
neo and you guys changed, but you werent in a position of trust where people read you, listened to you, and perhaps got wrong ideals from you.
to me, call me funny, she was in a place where Americans held as a position of trust, and she did not learn her history and other things, but instead did what most of them do, recycle old ideas making them fresh for re-consumption… a form of mental social cecotropy that liberals practice.
like teachers, who i am also kind of harsh on, as they are trusted with our children… and police, as they are trusted with our lives and our rights where they meat the road, and so on.
i make distinctions… i tally up in light of differences
being an author, and writing liberal cecotropes for liberal consumption, and cleverly roping others into it….
is more toxic…
there is no way for her to go back and touch those she converted… (and the conversion factor the other way tends not to happen by means of logical discussion or anything else the over 100 different authors writing similarly warning us)
langston huges, if i remember correctly said something to the effect that he wished they would destroy his early works… bevcause they continue, even after his conversion, and death, to bring many to the fold (who never learn about his later life)
they make it sound like it was because of McCarthy, but his answer to why he never became a communist was because he didn’t agree with all their points (a lesson to those with personal versions of things which let them be in a club that they don’t actually agree with).
his removing the most radical poems from later selected works, and making comments (Which are almost impossible to find buried under all the homages and blind worship of his early self).
even now i am still trying to find a copy of richard wrights book.. i only read an article mentioning it, and the title. years ago i found it, but google sometimes makes things disappear, which the older search engines who were data oriented didnt. (you can type quotes from sentences in books and google wont find it, but the old searches did).
now the search for the phrase comes up only twice. once here by me, and here
In the Presence of Our Enemies: A History of the Malignant Effects in … By Ellen McClay
tinyurl.com/yyo7dlc
[another serendipitous kind of thing to look at i guess]
the point is we have to hold people who stand up to do certain jobs in which there is public trust, to higher standards. and not be so bleeding understanding of such harmful things.
Want to know what has killed more human beings than any other thing?
Ideas
Artfldgr: I’m not sure why you think Robin is or was an author. Granted, she’s a good writer. But she was and is a therapist.
Curtis,
thanks for your opinion..
i have read robin from the start too, but i wasnt commenting on how she wrote,whether she was good or bad, etc… that has nothing to do with it.
for the record, i like her writing, and enjoy and read her whenever i find she has written a new piece.
but what does that have to do with first blowing the public trust and not taking that part of things seriously?
it really doesn’t take a lot to know this missing history. a few good books… and then serendipitous reading of things from the period that people don’t read anymore.
these older histories are better… before the public trust was blown (it was done with a war between two groups of magazines… big tobacco won, socialism won, and the public trust was seen not to be worth protecting as the public didnt side with that action)
I may have robin mixed up with another robin, or similar author.. i read an awful lot and that can be quite easy.. (so i may have crossed wires)
i will be the first to say sorry to her if so.
and if so, then what i said doesnt apply to her.
its just that simple
but if it is someone in the public trust that way
then i think it applies that they keep that trust
we are aghast with our newspapers for how they write, and thats because we got used to the old level of how the public trust was kept.. it was not a natural state, it was part of the moral ethic of the culture, and now is failing since it only had moral momentum.
I hope everyone here has read Robin’s article from last week, The Rape of America.
That’s the best post I’ve seen from her. I think she summed it up nicely.
We don’t forgive others that they should escape justice. That, indeed, is a progressive idea, fraught with an arrogance that man can right the cosmic scales. Hopefully, we forgive as illustrated by a survivor of the most horrific recent genocide in Rwanda: “But me, I am ready to forgive. It is not a denial of the harm they did, not a betrayal of the Tutsis, not an easy way out. If I do not forgive them, it is I alone who suffers and frets and cannot sleep…”
I also enthusiastically welcome “changers”, being one myself.
It is heartening that people who were leftists when they were young realize their error as they grow older and more experienced. People almost never change in the other direction.
If we could just get leftists out of the educational system, I think our problem would be largely solved. Young people have to be taught to become leftists. It doesn’t necessarily come naturally.
Even though I’m not religious myself, I can’t help thinking about the life story of Saul/Paul from the New Testament.
As I’ve said before, there seems to be a cachet in having been wrong for so long, then getting right.
Having been right from the get-go is kind of boring.
I enjoy social gatherings where lefties predominate.
I know enough of various issues to make it clear to them that I know they are lying.
So, I don’t get invited so much. Trying to see the problem.
Some of our friends are what could be called “feeling lefties”, whose reaction to reality is to blame somebody for raining on their parade. And these are the ones with the most accumulated classroom seat time.
And I used to be a grunt, so I probably look as if I would welcome an attempt at intimidation. That’s kind of a handicap, so I try to look humble and passive. Suck them in.
Thing is, I really, really don’t like those people.
They have done so much damage and insulted me and those like me so assiduously for so long that my Christian charity is detouring to other causes. Such as it is.
David Horowitz seems to have some of his energy from feeling he needs to make amends. Takes risks, works his butt off.
Point is, he does need to make amends.
A substantial proportion of those who comment regularly on NeoNeo were like me and like Neo herself, once on the other side. Granted, most of us were not as extreme as David Horowitz, a well-documented example of a red diaper baby who morphed into an adult commie before repenting.
While I didn’t vote for a Democratic Party presidential candidate after 1976, my transition was slow. First foreign policy, then domestic.
IMHO, one reason the left is so hostile to David Horowitz is that he is an apostate who left their side, and has devoted considerable time to making amends, as Richard Aubrey points out. If David Horowitz had made a quiet conversion, the left would not have been so apoplectic about him.
While much of the left is ostentatiously secular, they believe they are on the side of the angels. The angels just happen to be earth-bound.Each apostate who leaves the side of the angels must be struck down.
My own change began in the early-to-mid 90s. I had long been an opponent of the War on Drugs, and I still am. Back then I was a pot smoker, but I quit at least a decade ago.
At that time, I was also a supporter of gun control. But one day I had, out of the blue, a “road to Damascus” moment. I suddenly realized that a government “War on Guns” would turn otherwise normal, decent, law-abiding people into criminals, and at the same time would create a lucrative black market for organized crime to exploit.
A few years after that, I discovered Ayn Rand, and then it was “Katie bar the door.” So here we are now, actually living Atlas Shrugged. Aarrgh.
The way I like to describe Rand’s influence on me, and my change experience in general, is that she systematically demolished my most cherished beliefs and assumptions, and then proceeded to rebuild them on a stronger foundation. It actually wasn’t all that painful.
It sometimes seems that leftists, much like Muslims, are fundamentally angrier and less happy than conservatives, and are always seething about, or offended by, something.
Maybe that’s because they view Man as perfectible, and take umbrage at the obvious lack of perfection around them. They view perfection as the standard, and of course real life always falls woefully short, to their fury.
Contrariwise, conservatives view Man as imperfect, and accept that life is not always fair or just. That’s not to excuse inequity or injustice, the amelioration of which is in our power, but to realize that we can’t right every wrong. Conservatives’ standard seems to be more realistic: not whether the present circumstances are perfect, but whether they are good enough.
Moreover, despite adhering to post-modernism, which rejects absolute veriities, leftists also appear not to grasp that notions of equity and justice depend on the observer’s perspective. For example, they view equity and justice as residing in the release of “Mumia,” whereas I, for one, regard it as residing in hanging the SOB (a fate for which he is long overdue). Perfection is a personal, subjective notion, and therefore unobtainable by society; inevitably someone will take umbrage at any given situation.
What do others think about this?
“”leftists also appear not to grasp that notions of equity and justice depend on the observer’s perspective.””
They’ve latched on to a perspective that fullfills some need in them. It is a purely selfish act. Never mind that poverty will soon abound all around them when they get their way (See Liberal dominated Cities).
“”I’m at the point where I cannot knowingly put any money (not even one nickle) into the pockets of anyone that I can confirm supported this regime.””
JohnC
I’m struggling with this myself. Recognising the resentments i feel toward liberals i know. If i hang onto these feelings, they have in some way changed me to be more like them. I don’t want to give them that power. But boy is it tough when seeing little pieces of the great experiment called America being destroyed on a daily basis. And all liberals see are bold changes toward a utopia that can never be.
And all liberals see are bold changes toward a utopia that can never be.
And a utopia that is a dream that would in practice constitute a nightmare.
Reading these comments I get the impression that the views you have of liberals come largely from the views you have of your former selves. As in you are projecting something of your former self onto the “leftists” you so revile. Is it really fair to assume that every liberal is as ignorant as you once were? I am not trying to be insulting, I am just wondering how you can be so sure that what you left behind is what motivates your enemies on the “left”. I put left in quotes, as the people you attack don’t seem to be so very far to the left to me.
I too had a conversion of sorts. I went from being what I thought was a socialist, to what I suppose you could call a centrist (for want of a better word). I say “suppose” I was a socialist, as I was just plain ignorant really. This change happened to me in the 2 or 3 years after 9/11. I read Ayn Rand, abandoned relativism, flushed postmodernism out of my mind forever and my position has not shifted any further to the right since then. I wouldn’t object to being referred to as a liberal.
I agree with a lot of what is said on this blog, I think tradition is important, I believe that true leftists should be viewed with suspicion, but when it comes to the panic and hatred expressed towards the current administration I become totally lost. I want to understand, which is why I keep coming back, but I just don’t see it. The attacks on Obama just seem petty. The kinds of things that could be leveled against anyone you took exception to.
For me, when it comes to something like health care for example, the left and the right both have valid points. It is sad that a country as rich as ours won’t provide an adequate social safety net, so its citizens can be free to pursue their goals without the constant stress of being ruined by illness. Just like France, Canada, Japan, the UK etc. But innovation is essential and the profit motive is very important in spurring innovation, just as Republicans argue. I see that and I am sure the current administration sees it too. So a 2-tier, public private system would have seemed to be the logical solution. Decent basic coverage for all those in need, and private supplemental coverage for those fortunate enough to be able to afford it. Would this really have spelled the end of freedom as we know it? It is a real shame a sensible option like this was never politically possible. Maybe we will get there one day. Maybe a more centrist compassionate conservative will bring it about? I can live in hope.
I will continue reading this blog and trying to understand how you all think, I find it an interesting counterpoint to my usual New York Times, NPR etc. I would say MSM, but I find that to be unmitigated trash, whether it be MSNBC, NBC, ABC or FOX.
I think I see the problem right there.
Oh, and next time I see a “compassionate conservative”, I’ll kill him with my bare hands.
Simon,
I am definitely not referring to my former me when I talk about leftists because I never was a leftist. My background was smalltown/rural/Catholic schools/non-intellectual/strong family ties. I guess I went out into the big world because I wanted to explore issues like civil rights, poverty, and feminism. I worked as a welfare caseworker in one of the worst areas of North Philly and later as a social worker in a family planning clinic there. The Great Society goals were appealing, but what I saw on the ground was how they didn’t work and how human nature and individual people always seemed to fall outside the big plans. I learned that I was most able to help people when I could connect their problem to something from my own life lessons. The manuals of regulations could be used to help people only if you dug around, found the contradictions, and made your case for doing what a particular person needed. I should add that my supervisor at the time was a black ex-military man who was basically a by-the-rules guy, but who seemed to enjoy seeing me get around them. I owe him for a great many of my important life lessons.
So what else was happening at this time? Encounter groups, for one. I observed that my coworkers who got into this scam came out screwier than before. NOW. Fine for a while, but then the man hating oppressed rhetoric started to take over. I never could see my father, grandfathers, cousins or the ornery guys in my high school class as malicious oppressors. Scratch feminism. Then there was the whole reproductive health issue. Once again, the real women I saw were individuals whose problems couldn’t be pegged by the SOP of the abortion rights and sex ed people. Gay rights. I had a couple of good friends who were gay, but they had infinitely more class than the gay rights activists I see now. Viet Nam. I believed Cronkite, but I never saw my cousins who served there as monsters. Jane Fonda was disgusting to me.
What I never did was change my self identification as a Democrat until after 9/11. From my perspective in Germany, I could see the denial of the scope of the problem and I felt for Bush who seemed to be trying to find a way to handle the problem with very little help. I saw “intellectuals” on both sides of the Atlantic refusing to see how radicals were recruiting insecure, conflicted young men and turning them into weapons. And through all this, while I was reading books and news of all political persuasions from several countries, trying to understand, I kept hearing the same liberal, left clichees I had given up on in the seventies. I simply couldn’t handle the willed ignorance and self righteousness any longer. And I put Obama high on the list of these people. Has there ever been a time when he went out to ask questions and to learn? Not that I’ve heard of. He went out to tell people how his wisdom and dreamed up insights were the path to Utopia.
Simon,
You claim not to be ignorant, but you reference Canada, France and the UK as having health care systems to emulate.
If I were snarky, I’d say, “case closed”.
Come to think of it, I’m feeling snarky.
Simon: As usual, you are not interested in processes – the thuggery, the undermining of the constitution, the lies, the out of control deficits, and so forth. The ends justify the means right? That works just fine for you. Correct? A better description is that it is the audacity of a (dangerous) dope. And you Simon are an amoral enabler of that.
Expat, I agree with everything you say. Except the part where you say Obama is a Utopian idealist. I think he understands human nature more than you give him credit for. I am hoping he has the courage to take on the teaching unions, as he said he would. You really need a democrat to do things like this.
Richard, I am originally from the UK. I know this doesn’t make me an expert, but I can say with confidence I preferred what we had there to what I now have here. And I have a decent job here with health insurance provided. If the NHS opened a hospital in NYC for expats, I’d happily leave the US system.
> Because there’s no going back, you know; you can only go forward.
That, I think, is the Left’s main problem. They can’t quite get it that that dark area ahead is the edge of a cliff, and they are dragging the rest of us, kicking and screaming, straight towards it.
Turn to the right!! Tuuuuuurn toooo theeeee RIIIIIGHT!!! YOU IDIOTS!!!
I am happy to say that I’ve always been leaning towards conservativism/libertarianism (small-L).
In my early teens, the lesson I learned from the then-relatively fresh Watergate was not “you can’t trust Republicans”, but “You can’t trust politicians“.
By the time shortly thereafter when I was a senior in high school in a Humanities class in which the first half-year was spent on philosophy (largely fun BS sessions with a smart, easy going teacher overseeing to throw out questions Socratically).
Looking back, I see that I was Alex P. Keaton (more libertarian than conservative, but much the same in many ways) long before anyone had ever heard of the character. In those philosophy sessions, I always seemed to wind up on one side of the argument, usually with one or two supporters (never the same ones) and the rest of the class on the other. I didn’t realize it then but they were the liberals and, well, I wasn’t.
I really do think that the world is going to be vastly improved by the end of the Boomers. Nothing personal, I just think their liberal idiocy is ruining the country.
Simon,
As they say in the UK, “on form” you’d be less likely to be pestering us pretty soon.
> There is still fear in my heart about too much exposure, however, as I must rely on social acceptance for employment opportunities.
Jenna, you should enjoy this article (and perhaps the blogger):
How to Get So Dead in This Town
Money Quote:
I love liberals. They’re so not liberal it’s almost a fulfillment of George Orwell’s 1984.
> Good life lesson buried in there. Anyone who thinks human nature is basically good would have learned different PDQ in Hunter’s Point.
I think the experiences herein are inaccurate in their interpretation.
Human nature IS essentially good. Those who imagine that the average person, unbounded by the law, would immediately turn to rape, pillage, and plunder just doesn’t understand people.
a) There are bad apples in any bunch. They are the ones who give “people” a bad name. I would estimate them as between 5 and 25% of the population, depending on your definitions.
b) There are a large host — probably 40 to 60% who are basically sheep, and will often go along with whatever is happening around them — they are the ones who, seeing the riot, and people smashing windows and stealing things, hop on the bandwagon and go “Hey, ME TOO!” These people are NOT bad, they are just stupid. Show them a video of them doing this sort of thing and they’ll feel very ashamed, and be quite unhappy with themselves — not because YOU know but because THEY knew all along and at best blocked out the thought of it, and now it’s gotten rubbed in their faces. Guilt. They’re also the mob screaming for blood — take any one of them aside and ask them if they really think the evil deed they are screaming for should happen, and chances are they’ll startle and say, “God, no!”. I would lay odds that many of those in Hunters’ Point, for example, would, if given a chance to live a peaceable life with limited turmoil, would opt for exactly that.
c) The third class of bad behavior is one almost anyone can fall into — think Colonel Nicholson from ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai‘: “What have I done?” — Too focused on the minutia to really think about the big picture. Engineering/Tech-geek types are most susceptible to this, but virtually anyone can do it.
That human beings are basically good is evinced by the development of “humanity” for the last several millenia — things we used to take in stride, as perfectly normal, have become things we stare aghast at in modern times. Slavery being the most visible of those. Not just against blacks, but pretty much everyone. And as the last half-millenia has progressed, we’ve seen slavery diminish substantially, not so much because of external forces but because of the essential decency of the people. The UK initiated its anti-slavery laws not because of blacks threatening uprisings, nor because of others forcing them to end the practice. They did it because more and more of them saw the essential wrongness of it In the USA, while there was an awful civil war over it, keep in mind that the war, as much of it as was driven by slavery, was because the slave-holding minority in the south feared it being outlawed by the non-slave majority in the north. Long before the war itself, there was an abolitionist movement in the Americas.
The violence inherent in our society has been steadily on the wane for over a century. That humans have, indeed, killed more in the last century than ever before deals far more with the production of the human mind being perverted by the arrogant and evil few to do as they will — it’s not the will of the majority to do these wrongs.
Simon, I said he told the people his plans and insights were the path to Utopia. Not the same thing. No one can tell exactly what Obama thinks because he changes messages depending on the audience and because he has never risked anything for principles, not even votes in the Illinois Senate. The only thing you can count on with Obama is that he will do his darndest to stay on top and take credit for the accomplishments of others. BTW, I had some contact with the ACORN forerunner, the Welfare Rights Organization. I figured out pretty early that they were thugs. Obama seems to approve of their methods.
I , too, am a convert.
I was raised to be a good liberal/progressive by a mother that was a hippie and longs for a return of the days of protests, flower children etc. My dad is a Vietnam vet who became strongly anti-war after he left the service. My mother thinks all candidate viability revolves around the Roe vs. Wade case: It is the first, last and only question that matters to her. My father just wants all of our troops home, no matter what.
I am the oldest of three children. My younger sister is a clone of my mother. My little brotther thinks that whatever comes from Jon Stewart’s mouth is The Gospel.
It has been difficult for me, surrounded by people that I love, decent people, that seem so deluded. Family get togethers are quiet (on my part) as I listen to how wonderful President Obama is, and even when he isn’t, at least he’s not George Bush.
My transformation came after college, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. I had previously voted for the man, like I was trained, and then watched him perjor himself. My parents and family kept harping on the “it was only a blowjob line”. All I could think was that he had just broken his word to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What else had he lied about or was willing to lie about?
It was the first crack in the dam. I discovered, or I should say rediscovered, Ayn Rand. This time reading her on my own and not through my Lit professors’ filters. Then I discovered that while I still can’t stand Rush Limbaugh, he hasn’t actually said most of the things attributed to him. I frequently agree with him, I just think he’s a jerk. But he’s not the evil hatemonger they paint him to be.
Most of the people I know or work with are liberals. A couple of my core best friends are libertarians like myself. But mostly, I’m ignored when politics are discussed with friends, family and co-workers. To them I’m just a quaint, friendly, funny eccentric.
Simon.
We could lay the same accusations against anybody?
You know of a president who has called for a civilian security force as well-funded and equipped as the military?
Who’s this he’s talking about? SEIU thugs? The New Black Panthers?
Keep in mind that many tyrannies have separate paramiltaries. The Nazis had the SS, the Sovs the KGB/NKVD/MVD in part to keep the military in line, along with terrorizing the civilians.
I have no idea what zero is talking about but, presuming he does, this is unprecedented in US history.
> Reading these comments I get the impression that the views you have of liberals come largely from the views you have of your former selves.
Nope. Never was a libtard, never had any kind of self-hatred to project.
I do see LOTS AND LOTS of self-hatred projected BY the left onto their ideological enemies, though. The determination, for example, that the only POSSIBLE justification for being against Obama being racism (and vs. Hillary it was sexism) ties strongly to their own racism and sexism. And yes, they are far and away the greatest progenitors of both.
I find my detestation of libtards derives from their determination that how they FEEL about something is even vaguely significant compared to what the actual results are.
I recall, many years ago, a John Stossel 20/20 report on a teacher who had a unique class project for her elementary school class — they collected monies to buy the freedom of Sub-Saharan slaves.
Stossel traced the money, looked into what the result was in the locations of the money’s end.
The result, as anyone even vaguely competent economically could foresee, was the increase of the market — yes, MORE PEOPLE were brought into slavery to suck up the available dollars.
Now, I have no major problem with this teacher at this point. The notion of slavery as a market force is not an obvious one.
No, what happened next is the problem.
When confronted with the nature of the results of the program, when asked if she would stop doing it, her reply was, that “She didn’t know. It made the children feel good about themselves, so she thought they would continue it”.
I wanted to reach right through the TV and BITCHSLAP HER DUMBF**K ASS BACK TO THE STONE AGE.
“Freeing the slaves” was irrelevant all along — it was how it made her feel (yes: HER) that mattered all along.
And that, in a nutshell, is the heart of libtards everywhere. The actual deeds done don’t matter in the least, only “how you feel about them”.
> It is sad that a country as rich as ours won’t provide an adequate social safety net, so its citizens can be free to pursue their goals without the constant stress of being ruined by illness.
It is sad that you claim to see things as you do, yet fail to grasp that ObamaCare, which is the target of much of the ire (NOT Obama, who is targeted for his continued support of it despite the blatant objections of far too much of the populace)) fails to provide ANY semblance of that which you speak.
That kind of insurance is one most people would tolerate — catastrophic health insurance.
It would cost far, far less than even a basic “typical” cover-x-y-z policy, since the payout would be only for bankrupting problems — long hospital stays, treatments totalling into the tens of thousands, and so forth.
The one thing we DO know is, THAT’s NOT OBAMACARE.
> I see that and I am sure the current administration sees it too. So a 2-tier, public private system would have seemed to be the logical solution.
Really? Because there’s ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support such a claim. For every lie told to an audience by Obama which claims support for such a thing, there are a half-dozen other recorded statements which put the lie to it.
So pardon me if I begin to doubt your veracity in every way as to your being “middle of the road”.
> I find it an interesting counterpoint to my usual New York Times, NPR etc. I would say MSM, but I find that to be unmitigated trash,
LOL. The NYT as worthy of any consideration other than a parrot dropping defense system. NPR as anything other than willfully deceptive dreck.
Yeah, you’re “middle of the road” all right.
Geez.
Clue
Robin’s a therapist, so is Neo. If a conservative therapist convention were held, the phone booth would be getting pretty full.
Early in Robin’s writing, she said that one of her clues was that, when things got dangerous, lefty men ranged from useless to threatening.
I found that interesting. I figured useless, sure, but threatening was a surprise.
Thinking about it later on, it figures.
Recently, a lost kid was found in a Florida swamp after several days. Guys from her church went looking and found her before the gators did, which meant, among other things, they had to be worried about gators.
Like to know the denomination or lib/conservative bent.
Guess it’s toward the conservative, evangelical side. The libs would have been holding a candlelight vigil, more than likely.
Simon: many of us here live in blue states, and socialize and work with many many liberals. We are pretty much surrounded by them; I know I am. We have no need whatsoever to base our opinions of them on our former selves. We have plenty of current examples of liberal thought to know and study.
I say again: take a stroll through Hunter’s Point. Then come talk about human nature.
So unbounded by law, Woody Allen and PeeWee Herman would not immediately turn to rape, pillage, and plunder?
No one said anything about the average person, who isn’t that tough, and knows that there are people a lot tougher out there. Consequently, when law and order break down, the average person (read: all women and most men) hunkers down. That isn’t necessarily a reflection of their essential goodness, but more a realistic assessment of their place in the food chain. Most violent felons in prison watch their P’s and Q’s too, for the same reason.
Sure, unbounded by law, Woody Allen and PeeWee Herman would behave themselves and lie low. Mike Tyson, Tookie Williams, Hell’s Angels, rioters in South Central, not so much. There’s where we see human nature completely unfettered. Another place to see it, outside the physical context: the executive suite.
If the NHS opened a hospital in NYC for expats, I’d happily leave the US system.
Fascinating lack of insight.
If the NHS opened a hospital here for Americans, I’d happily leave the US system too. Send the bill for my care to Old Blighty, thank you very much. I too would like to have the good parts of both systems, and to avoid the bad parts.
But more to the point, why did you leave Britain? Economic opportunity, right? Why do you suppose there is (or used to be) more economic opportunity here?
Let’s use federalism to guide us. Which states are doing well, and which poorly? The ones with extensive public services and high taxes (CA, NY, NJ, MI, IL, MA) or public limited services and low taxes (TX)?
While I agree with your general points, Occam’s Beard, I also happen to live in a state that complicates your last question. Nevada has some of the lowest taxes of any state, but the last numbers I saw showed it ranks second only to Michigan in unemployment, and it has been one of the states with the most foreclosures since 2007. In other words, the economy here is doing as poorly as anyplace, but if low taxes were all it took, we’d be seeing more of a turnaround here in Nevada.
Kurt, I view Nevada’s situation as an anomaly for several reasons. Nevada’s problem resulted in part from the large influx of people who moved there during the housing bubble, and who are underwater and/or saddled with toxic mortgages as a result.
In addition, Nevada’s economy disproportionately relies on tourism, which is traditionally the first casualty of a lousy economy elsewhere.
The true impact of liberal policies can be seen most clearly here in my beloved California. Forty years ago it was conservative, and an economic powerhouse that was wealthier than all but a few countries. Now, after two generations of liberal infestation, it’s liberal, has high taxes, and is bankrupt. Policies that can bankrupt a California can bankrupt anyplace.
O.B.: I would agree with all your points, and I would also add that Victor Davis Hanson has written many great pieces lately about the fate of California (and what it implies for the fate of the nation under Obama). In Nevada, our problems are compounded by the fact that a lot of the folks who moved here during the housing boom were Californians who brought their leftist and “progressive” opinions with them.
Still, it doesn’t make the issue of knowing what to do about Nevada’s problems any easier. For decades the state has talked about diversifying its economy, but it never really has happened. One of the reasons it hasn’t is that we don’t have the critical mass of educated and highly skilled workers needed to sustain an advanced and more diverse economy. Texas at least has oil money to invest in higher education, etc. Nevada has gold and other precious metals, but most of the wealth those generate leaves the state.
In Nevada, our problems are compounded by the fact that a lot of the folks who moved here during the housing boom were Californians who brought their leftist and “progressive” opinions with them.
Yes, the liberal locusts, having swept in from the East Coast and destroyed California, are now moving on, their work here done.
They appear not to grasp that their attitudes cause the very problems that they fled somewhere else. Thirty years ago people began moving here in earnest from the East Coast, gushed about the wealth and low taxes, but at the same time lamented the lack of public services, never connecting the two. Amazing.
Kurt.
I live in Michigan, which has a fine higher ed system.
The governor is talking about “investing” in education, on the premise that educated workers will bring employers.
She hasn’t figured out, or hopes the rest of us haven’t, that a fresh college grad is more mobile than a business.
I have two children and three nieces. Call it five in the 30-38 age bracket.
Three are out of state. My daughter’s first job was in Needles, CA, and she is now in Texas. One niece is in the LAUSD and the other in North Carolina.
To make a banal paraphrase, offer a job and they will come.
What Michigan has is a high tax rate, high regulatory environment, and UAW/AFL.CIO expectations.
Two cities, Detroit and Flint, seriously considering downsizing.
We ship out educated people like medieval Switzerland exported pikemen, or Nepal Gurkhas. Difference is, our folks don’t retire here or send money back.
Point is, if there were opportunities, skilled workers would show up.
Occam’s Beard, I should have added that I’d happily pay National Insurance to the UK government rather than private insurance to Oxford.
I left Britain because my wife is American. I am from a small town, and I found the lure of NYC irresistible. Speaking of economic opportunity though, if I wanted to start my own business for example, I would rather do it in the UK. If I did it there I wouldn’t have to worry about private health insurance for my family. Risking it all to pursue your dream is a romantic idea, but being a bit of a scaredy cat, I’d rather have a safety net. There are many things about the US I prefer, but economic opportunity and health care are not amongst them.
Neo, I do know what you mean. I know liberals who do not seem to know why they think what they think. Which can be annoying. But this is also true Republicans I know. My friends fall into neither category as far as I can tell. Not that I have too many friends.
IgotBupkis, as I understand it, even with insurance in this country, a prolonged illness can bankrupt you. I remember when my son was born, even though both my wife and I have coverage, we had to pay $2000. 10% the cost of the C-section and hospital stay. The fast ones the insurance company tried to pull on us to get out of paying were unbelievable and caused a lot of stress. Just what you need when you have a newborn in the house. In the UK you are properly covered and you and your new child are made to feel welcome in the world. Sentimental and nannyish, perhaps, but it sure beats the reception our son got over here. We were turfed out the hospital before we had a chance to unpack. When the whole system is run for profit, a lot of what I consider to be care is lost.
ObamaCare is a mixed bag, it is not what I would have wanted, no, but I certainly don’t KNOW that it will result in disaster. No more than I KNOW doing nothing wouldn’t have. It has elements I like.
Richard Aubrey, because I don’t distrust Obama’s motives I have no reason to take what he said about a civilian national security force out of context. I believe what I read here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
These are the words he spoke, so I don’t get what I am missing? Am I am naive, or are you are paranoid? I remember when people on the left thought Bush was planning to take over the military to ensure McCain won the election. I thought they were paranoid too.
Conservative Therapists, what a great idea for folks mired in decades of nonsense.
I left Britain because my wife is American.
So?
I am from a small town, and I found the lure of NYC irresistible.
You have heard of London, right?
Pardon the sarcasm above, but it seems that you’re offering fairly lame excuses for leaving Britain. Marrying an American doesn’t necessitate your living here, nor does the desire to live in a large cosmopolitan city. Would you live here, American wife or no, if your familial income were halved? I doubt it. I doubt it very much.
Bottom line: it’s about the benjamins.
Occam’s Beard, we wanted to live close to one of our families. Hence my small town or NYC. London never entered into it.
If you knew my finances you’d have to laugh at your benjamins comment. Most of my friends in the UK earn more than I do here and if they were to move here they would not be earning more than they do there.
I am not sure what kind of a country you think you are living in that people from other rich western countries would be clambering to get in for a taste of the good life. Even people from India and China are starting to think twice. None of my family or friends have any desire to move here. Some of them think I am mad for staying.
I am not sure what kind of a country you think you are living in that people from other rich western countries would be clambering to get in for a taste of the good life.
As luck would have it, I have relevant first-hand experience, having lived in Europe for many years, and heard Europeans squawking about the difficulty of obtaining a green card sans anchor spouse, having to enter the green card lottery, and worrying about a brain drain. Perhaps that was just idle commentary.
No time to look up figures, and so will have to resort to anecdotal-type evidence, but consider how common it is to meet Europeans working in the US, and how rare it is to meet Americans working in(i.e., not just visiting) Europe. The same thing is true of Canadians.
While in Europe I taught in an ancient university that had a grand total of four (4) Americans on the faculty. Most American universities have that many Europeans in any given department. Got to be a reason for that.
Simon: many of us here live in blue states, and socialize and work with many many liberals. We are pretty much surrounded by them; I know I am. We have no need whatsoever to base our opinions of them on our former selves. We have plenty of current examples of liberal thought to know and study.
I’m a grad student in anthropology. My anthro department is located at the “left pole,” i.e. the place from which all other positions are to be found to the right. Not only does it color their personal opinions and behavior (my department head, for example, routinely and vocally referred to the Bush administration as the “Fourth Reich,” comparisons of Bush to Hitler and Saddam were de rigeur, and at least one of my fellow students was well known for loudly expressing his wish that Bush would “just die”), but it absolutely does find its way into their teaching, as well. Like neoneo said, I don’t need to think back to how I used to be to understand leftists; I have plenty of opportunities to observe and study leftists in the wild.
colagirl,
i work in a college, and surrounded by the same kind.
what is sad is that those that make comparisons of bush to hitler and saddam, have no idea of reality, they are completely out of touch.
we are talking about people who went to school, studied hard, went straight to college, studied harder, went to graduate school, studied till they dropped.
now they are phds, and such and learned, but they never realized that compared to regular people they only got to sample the world.
even if they traveled to a far away place, its just a sample, because the largest portion of their experiential lives have been within the confined structure of wanting to be paid to sit around and work on ideas in a box.
they are like house cats, that from kindergarten to years of professorship they have been within a society that only samples that world cause they are generally too busy.
this is the ‘fishbowl’ i refer to and why researchers in the recent past were much better caliber (morals and public trust, etc).
the problem with the fishbowl effect is that it does to a small collective of humans what generally happens to a single human when isolated. people who are apart from people for a long time, lose their centers of behavior. since their behavior is so adaptable, it doesn’t stop adapting when there is nothing to oppose. it pushes, and nothing pushes back to center behavior to a local group. so their behavior can get odder and odder (when seen from the perspective of that center).
consider it a kind of behavioral version of the isolation tank, where the lack of input causes the brain to have nothing to adapt to and measure from and so when it pushes, it keeps going.
well same thing in this kind of academic system (which is why it was designed this way but for other outcome). the people in the system set themselves apart with all kinds of mental things, and then are surrounded by others who generally have much less world experience than the average person, and so they are internally timid and externally act it out (though they dont know it).
the things normal people do over the course of their lives tends to be things that these people dont get a chance to do, and dont understand.
of course not all, but a surprising number that was higher than i would have ever thought.
and so in this world there is nothing to push back against these thoughts. bush and hitler are alike, and with their affectations they accept this fact like any they accept as they go through their other work and sphere and read a paper (today they are much less critical of other work in a technical way).
dont get me wrong they are wonderful people who really want to help. problem is that they grew up in a box which told them this is the way that helps, and they never thought the horrror of it all was that the boxes lied along the way.
some of them i want to slap upside the head and say wake up, the concepts your running around with only work in this fishbowl where whatever wackaloon premise they give you to think resonates down the halls and and hums against any other thought.
and in this way, very respected people can end up making ideas as nutty as the hermit on the hill, and as one sided.
Simon:
Here is one point on which I agree with you: on the issue of pacifism and conscientious objection. My assumption is that those who make the decision for pacifism are doing so on a carefully considered philosophical and/or religious examination of the issues. I was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War. At the time I thought I had made my decision completely on carefully considered philosophical and religious examination of the issues. The draft board must have thought I made a good argument, as they granted me 1-O status.
One reason for my pacifism was a desire to have clean hands. I changed my mind about pacifism after Pol Pot’s genocidal regime in Cambodia . People who stand on the sidelines and do nothing to stop such slaughter also have bloodstained hands. There are no clean hands in life, only varying degrees of bloodstained hands. Either by acts or by abstention, we all commit evil.
I didn’t realize until decades later that the primary reason for my becoming a pacifist was the death of a friend in a gun accident with his older brother when I was in elementary school. I was not afraid to go to jail by refusing induction into the army. I was not afraid of dying. Ask the two rednecks who beat me up for having long hair: they will inform you I was no coward. I feared killing, as I knew some of the consequences of killing: how the poor brother suffered over what he accidentally did to my friend, his younger brother. Two lives were ruined, not just one.
Most who decide to become pacifists do not have the underlying trauma behind their decision that I did. In that sense, you are correct.
I was raised in a liberal community by liberal parents, so I can be sure that for the most part what I left behind is what currently motivates those on the left. I used to think like a liberal, for the most part, so I know how they think, for the most part. I interact with Democrats on a daily basis. I go out for drinks every Friday with a Democrat. Both my precinct and my city went for Obama. I count Yellow Dog Democrats among my relatives. It’s not as if I don’t have a clue.
IMHO, that is a really dumb question. I would not be so foolish as to say “every liberal.” I have no idea why you framed the question that way. If there is something that one learns in life, it is that there is always someone that knows more, someone who is brighter. I encounter my betters on this blog every day. However, given that my SATs and GREs are in the 99th percentile, it would be fair to assume that MOST liberals are MORE ignorant than I once was and more ignorant than I am now. I would make the same comparison to most conservatives, not just liberals, however.
Simon.
Ref the civilian security forces:
there are several key phrases.
“just as well-funded” “national security” “just as powerful”
We already have institutions operating in those areas, including national security.
We have three levels of law enforcement, federal, state and local.
Disaster relief combines charities (Red Cross, Salvation Army, various church operations, etc.), National Guard, and federal military. If you liked the response to Katrina, it was because of those groups. If you didn’t, it was because the federal level got a good deal of blame for the shortcomings of the state and local faults. Inventing another organization isn’t going to magically improve the situation.
Here’s something you probably didn’t know. The doctrine of posse comitatus prohibits federal military forces from operating in law enforcement. If you need troops, say for riots, you get the National Guard. That’s because, the title notwithstanding, the Guard is a state army (or Air Force in case of the Air National Guard) belonging to the governor. Thus, posse comitatus is not breached.
Once in a great while, martial law is declared and federal troops can be used–Detroit 67, for example.
The military has two reserve entities; “reserves”, belonging to the feds, and the Guard, belonging to the states.
Reserves include any number of support units and medical units and so forth.
If you want heavy combat units, you go to the Guard, you get them from the states.
Do you have, Simon, any idea why that is?
We do not wish a federal force “just as powerful” as the military. What on earth does “just as powerful” mean, anyway? Why is it necessary that it be “just as powerful”? Against what would it be contending and what about that would require it to be “just as powerful”? Would it be restrained by “posse comitatus”?
The point is, no president in history has ever suggested such a thing and nobody else has suggested it might be necessary. For what?
To Neocon and all the other kind folks who offered advice, links and info, thanks!
With longtime friends, I’m totally gleefully out there, actually enjoying watching their eyes popping and jaws dropping. But in the public forum, I’ll have to stay hidden, or I may never have a chance to perform in my town again.