Asymmetrical Information

Mailer? Enlightened? Many words come to mind to describe Norman Mailer... enlightened is not one of them.

I'm sure you already know this, but the answer to you last question is most likely "Because you're looking for it."

Mailer is a damned communist and doesn't try to hide it...send him to Cuba with Glover and Bellafonte.

Many times, I've been subjected to hard-core right-wingers crowing about their big brass balls. In fact, during recent international events, I heard many hawkish repubs calling hawks dickless and so forth. Boys will be boys... until they die of old age.

Gawdamman, being a communist is not illegal. You may occasionally notice communist and socialist candidates on the ballot.

Many times, I've been subjected to hard-core right-wingers crowing about their big brass balls.

I don't know about brass, but I know for certain that right-wingers are more endowed than left-wingers. ;)

Let's also consider that Mailer's retort is NOT funny. One may quibble about how funny Miller's WSJ piece is, but, if I'm not mistaken, the paper sought to publish it; it is not the case that Miller "sucked up."

Needless to say Mailer didn't want to "dignify" Miller's broadside with something weighty and pre-mediated or truly satiric. But, then, he should have kept quiet. Why answer Miller at all to show his silent contempt? No, instead, Mailer goes juvenile and enters locker room mode. The reason: he really doesn't have anything to say for HIMSELF.

Maybe Mailer is an outworn "white" male after all.

Oh dear, I meant premeditated, not pre-mediated.

Jane Galt wrote:

Why is it that every time I see a debater descending into the genitalia wars, it's always one from the allegedly enlightened left?

I'd guess it's because people on the Left are usually more likely to use vulgarity and profanity to express themselves.

now mailer's original comment revolved around the premise, that white males can no longer compete on the playing fields of america and have gone to war to compensate.

apparently, mailer, an old white male, can no longer compete against a young (relatively), whimsical urban comdedian, who has been taking large chunks out of the old left's ego.

to compensate, he attacks miller's manhood without realizing the attack reveals mailer's own castration.

on the banks of the Housatonic.

Google newsgroups search:

"Liberals are pussies": 172 matches

"Conservatives are pussies": 0 matches

"Democrats are pussies": 60 matches

"Republicans are pussies": 21 matches

Megan, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Gawdamman wrote: "Mailer is a damned communist and doesn't try to hide it...send him to Cuba with Glover and Bellafonte"

Megan, why is it every time I see a debater descending into the "go somewhere else (Cuba, France, Iraq, etc...) if I disagree with you" wars, it's always one from the allegedly rational right?

Thorley Winston wrote: "I'd guess it's because people on the Left are usually more likely to use vulgarity and profanity to express themselves."

Thorley, see the Gawdamman quote above.

and doug-e, your point is?

Doug Reynolds wrote:

Thorley, see the Gawdamman quote above.

Yeah and check out the follow-up post from JC.

However if you read other threads in this blog or read the posts of authors of the more Left-leaning blogs versus the Right-leaning blogs, I think my point about the Left tending to use profanity and vulgarity more rings true.

Just something I've noticed while surfing.

Doug Reynolds wrote:

Thorley, see the Gawdamman quote above.

Yeah and check out the follow-up post from JC.

However if you read other threads in this blog or read the posts of authors of the more Left-leaning blogs versus the Right-leaning blogs, I think my point about the Left tending to use profanity and vulgarity more on the balance rings true.

Just something I've noticed while surfing.

Doug Reynolds wrote:

Thorley, see the Gawdamman quote above.

Yeah and check out the follow-up post from JC.

However if you read other threads in this blog or read the posts of authors of the more Left-leaning blogs versus the Right-leaning blogs, I think my point about the Left tending to use profanity and vulgarity more on the balance rings true.

Just something I've noticed while surfing.

Sorry for the triple post! (my bad)

Actually, Jane, your earlier post proves that bloggers (or one blogress we know, anyhow) can do better than Miller as well as better than Mailer. But then, Mailer couldn't very well come up with a response to getting his intellectual butt kicked by a girl.

Dennis Miller is one hell of a man. My buddy, while working crew at an interview with Miller in LA was inspired by the last segment before a break; Miller was talking about his early days as a young comedian and looked back fondly at having the courage to walk up to Andrew Dice Clay and compliment him.

The first segment ended; my friend couldn't get his mind off of the words Miller said. Miller is, apparently, extremely intimidating in person. "Looks like he hasn't slept in days" and is so razor-sharp that "you know that if you say something he'll have a better comeback."

My friend is, as luck would have it, conservative (social libertarian bent, but hey). He likes Miller and wanted to let him know. Inevitably, a moment came where no one was around him.

My friend walked up to Miller.

"Dennis?" he asked. Miller gave him a weird look.

My friend continued. "I just wanted to say that I'm proud of your support for President Bush."

Miller stopped for a moment, then put his arm around my friend and said:

"Fuckin' no-brainer, kid."

He went on to talk about how he's grateful to be in his 50s and established, not needing to worry about blacklisting or anything else related to his views. Apparently inspired himself, Miller went back to the interview to talk about the importance of confidence in early careers.

It's a damned fine story, but I can't imagine how powerful it must have been for my pal.

Michael, how many liberals have moved from the dark side to the side of liberty, miller is just one of the many.

on the Banks of the Housatonic

LOL....Dennis is really gonna give it to Mailer now.

Actually you can see a very old stand up comic dynamic with Dennis. Think of the left calling him a traitor, kiss ass, eunic etc. as hecklers in a comedy club audience....what do good comedians do to hecklers? Make the hecklers the butt of the comics' jokes even to the point of ignoring their own material.

As much as you can see this dynamic Dennis's reaction to the Left, you can also see it in Bill Maher's reaction to the Right after they went after him.

Jane Galt wrote:

Why is it that every time I see a debater descending into the genitalia wars, it's always one from the allegedly enlightened left?

Selective vision? While I've definitely seen people on the left get pretty nasty, in most areas I've seen it goes the other way. Go read the Fray where posters comment on Slate magazine articles sometime. I'd say it's about 3 to 1, with the right wingers being nasty more often. And frankly, they get far nastier than Mailer did. As far as Miller is concerned I can agree with a lot of what he says and disagree with quite a bit too.

Why is it that every time I see a debater descending into the genitalia wars, it's always one from the allegedly enlightened left?

Because you need to read more?

It's not like it's that difficult to find examples of that type of argument on the right.

Actually, I find it is in the blogosphere. Of course, I tend to strike off sites that use that kind of language, so my universe is somewhat limited. But "The right does X because they're insecure about the size of their equipment" seems to be more common; the right generally just seems to think the left are stupid. Note that this was not a discussion of who calls names more; just of who uses this particular name.

J.C. - Being a communist may not be illegal, but at this late stage in the world history of communism it sure casts suspicion on the intentions of the communist towards the folks she wants to rule.

I've just been following this discussion string from a safe distance because I think the original post was appalling and the thread has become even more appalling.

Megan, love you dearly, but what a hypocrit ('scuze the spelling, spell checker is out and I'm dyslexic) you are.

Miller has said pleanty of times that he thought various people have lacked testicles. From the 1990s when he first became popular, to the present. Perhaps Democrats do use "vulgarities" more often than republicans. Who cares? if your shooting cheep insults at one another who cares what word is involved, isn't it the sentiment that's more important than the actual physcial words? I'd rather have someone tell me I lack satisfactory genitalia than call me a moron.

"I tend to strike off sites that use that kind of language, so my universe is somewhat limited."

Why, would it hurt your delicate virginal ears? Perhaps you should expose yourself to more anger and vitriol. Perhaps this last post of yours (and I often find your insights thought provoking, but not this last one) would have been more tempered if you had.

"Note that this was not a discussion of who calls names more; just of who uses this particular name."

Really? I thought it was a post about how stupid Mailer's comments were (and they were). You might have made your point if you had left it at that. But instead you resort to the same generalizations and name calling you're claiming Mailer does. Why didn't you just say that Democrats had small penises (and I admit, I do)? It would have accomplished a similar result, only been less insulting.

Megan, I am used to you taking the high road, and in this case you're down in the mud with the other animals. Do you really want to be there?

Megan, I am used to you taking the high road, and in this case you're down in the mud with the other animals. Do you really want to be there?

Whoa. Zero to Orwell in less than 25 posts.

I suppose I exempt Miller because he's a comedian, and comedians in general have potty mouths. But I've never seen, say, Rush Limbaugh or William Buckley respond to criticism by suggesting that their opponent is trying to compensate for something wrong with their genitalia. But of course, I could be missing something.

"But I've never seen ... William Buckley respond to criticism by suggesting that their opponent is trying to compensate for something wrong with their genitalia." Well, duh! There aren't any words for either the male or the female genitalia that are sufficiently long and uncommon for WFB's taste. ;-)

Or more seriously, WFB does not need to descend to the gutter to find crushing insults.

Michael, first of all I was the 25th post...so correctly your post should have read "Whoa. Zero to Orwell in 25 posts." I hate it when things are inacurate ;-)

Megan, That's a cop-out. You're being disingenuous, and I expect more from you.

"Why is it that every time I see a debater descending into the genitalia wars, it's always one from the allegedly enlightened left?"

I don't recall seeing the disclaimer that comedians were exempt? People have said to you on this string, "Hey, Megan, you're just not looking in the right spot!" and you say, "I don't read those web sites." and then I say, "Miller has used that insult thousands of times." and you reply, "It doesn't count, he's a comedian." I don't recall Phil Donohue or Elenor Clift every insulting someone's masculinity based on their political beliefs. Does that mean they cancel out William F.B. and Rush? And I have a distant memory of Rush refering to his political opponents by all sorts of undignified names. Does that not count?

Again, if your post had been what an idiot Mailer was, you would have not heard a word from me. If it's about how ALL the democrats insult ALL the republicans based on Penis size and the republicans NEVER do the same...well, then I, in light of the general proof, have to disagree with you.

Is this how all econimists work...throw out the data you don't like so you can prove your supposition true?

Michael, first of all I was the 25th post...so correctly your post should have read "Whoa. Zero to Orwell in 25 posts." I hate it when things are inacurate ;-)

So, like, that was an Animal Farm reference? ;-)

As far as Mailer and the left...my guess would be that Megan is matching the stated intent of the "enlightened left" to its behavior - not rank and file, mind you, as Megan seems specific; therefore the top-echelon fellows like, say, Fisk and Mailer, Gore and Chomsky. They're all lauded as caring and passionate and arduously devoted to human dignity, peace, love and all sorts of wonderful colors of the leftist-worldview rainbow. But what comes out of their mouth or pen betrays a certain calculating coldness; a horrible, spindly bitterness. There's a sharpness - a deliberateness, a permanence - in the delivery of a negative comment.

Miller and others - even Limbaugh - may poke fun and attach names, but I'll tell you: it's never done in the manner - the syntax, the rhythm, the tone of voice - one would use if they truly wanted to hurt someone.

I say this as a keen, objective observer: I'm quite good at reading a statement's motivation and intentions. I've seen a lot of snappy insults flung about by people who generally lampoon; mouthy folks who, true to their character and experience, wheel and deal with jokes and jabs.

And then there are people who are unmistakably brittle and vulpine. You wouldn't believe it until you saw it, but they intend to injure. I've known a couple of people like that personally and angry exchanges have been, in a word, frightening.

For a less aristocratic analogy, they're the guy who, when mates are blotto and taking a few fun swings at each other, gets hit, gets mad and, quietly slipping on the knuckles, asks for one more shot.

People like this inhabit all planes of society but it appears Megan's view - mine, as well - that they saturate the highest, most venerable and intellectual ranks of the left.

> "Liberals are pussies": 172 matches

> "Conservatives are pussies": 0 matches

"liberals are pussies" is not a genital remark any more than "blockhead" is a comment upon the shape of someone's head.

> Megan, the plural of anecdote is not data.

However, anecdote trumps quantitative non sequitor.

"Miller and others - even Limbaugh - may poke fun and attach names, but I'll tell you: it's never done in the manner - the syntax, the rhythm, the tone of voice - one would use if they truly wanted to hurt someone."

Yeah, not like the good-natured fun of Rush Limbaugh calling a child ugly because he doesn't like her father, or George W. Bush mocking a condemned prisoner's pleas for mercy.

Yeah, it was just a friendly jest when Rush told a caller to "get the bone out of your nose".

"Fuckin' no-brainer, kid."

Finally Miller gets something right.

Yeah, not like the good-natured fun of Rush Limbaugh calling a child ugly because he doesn't like her father

No go, Orbitron. Rush apologized in person to Hillary recently for that because he saw it as a jest back in the day and didn't think about what harm he was doing. Careless? Yes. Heartless? No.

FrankC, whether or not Rush said that, what's offensive or venomous about it? Sounds like it's on par with "getting one's nose out of joint." Come on. You'd need to be brought up in a super-Montessori bubble to see that as hurtful.

Not to diverge too much by the Megan's mention of Limbaugh but really, trying to pin him as mean-spirited is lame; it's only easy to do if one doesn't actually listen to him.

Oh, and I meant far-out, mega-intelligentsia "Gore Vidal," not poor old Al Gore.

"top-echelon fellows like, say, Fisk and Mailer, Gore [Vidal] and Chomsky."

Are you nuts? That's like calling Buchanan and Jean LePen top-echelon conservatives.

Are you nuts? That's like calling Buchanan and Jean LePen top-echelon conservatives.

I doubt it.

First of all, Le Pen is nobody's child; when American conservatives talked about him, it was with a mixture of revulsion and bemused observation, what with France's history of Stalinists and Trotskyites, extremists on the other side of the pond, grabbing large chunks of a given vote.

The New Republic stands out for hammering Mailer consistently; elsewhere he's either lauded or arbitrarily disconnected from the left but without the necessary criticism to dialectically disown him - which Buchanan, now teetering at the weirdo ideological nadir between reactionary and radical, receives from the mainstream right whenever he opens his trap.

Vidal - intellectuals who have been shamed out of authority do not have their biographies written by Fred Kaplan.

Chomsky - I wouldn't exactly call Harvard and MIT backalley SA dens, and I have yet to see him politically jettisoned from the intellectual left.

Fisk - celebrated and again, hasn't received the shaming one requires to be disconnected with a given ideological wing, or else claims that "he doesn't represent it" ring hollow.

These four have hardly been disassociated by the left, which as a group seems unwilling to expend the capital or energy. Instead, whenever one of this bunch says something reprehensible, the left shrugs its shoulders and denies involvement.

When Pat Buchanan's blubbering, blame-the-Jews missive on the Iraqi liberation was printed, conservatives rightly took a day to tear it to shreds. And that was it. Buchanan has been marginalized and, indeed, the right does not take him seriously.

And if you don't believe me or don't buy into the great responsibility a community of journalists and publications has to shame and expel those who no longer represent its collective voice, Buchanan received his condemnation in no uncertain terms from one of the premier conservative magazines in 1999.

The problem with Rush's remark was that he was talking to an African-American caller. This was implying that his caller was coming from an aboriginal or tribal point of view. Now, if you think that's ok, then say so, instead of accusing me of being super-sensitive.

Michael,

You called these guys "top-echelon" guys. They're not. Any more than Buchanan or LePen is a top-echelon conservative guy, which, as you point out, they aren't. (though I might mention that Buchanan WAS, for longer than he should have been. As recently as 1992 he was getting millions of votes in Republican presidential primaries).

Ths notion that they are "top-echelon" because people haven' t issued formal denunciations is silly. If some nut on the street says something idiotic, that doesn't make him top-echelon because nobody denounces him.

Chomsky is a tenured professor of linguistics. Do you think he should be fired for his political views? That's championing freedom.

Fisk is a British journalist. I haven't seen him celebrated by the Democratic Party.

Having Fred Kaplan write your biography makes you a leading political figure? Kaplan is an English professor who's written a couple of other biographies. He's hardly in position to anoint anyone.

And Mailer is a just a loudmouth (who's feuded with Vidal, so they aren't "in league") whom even you admit many have disowned and harshly criticized.

None of these people have anything remotely resembling the political influence of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

In any case, your bogeyman "left" is not some monolithic organization that can excommunicate or "jettison" people who express heretical views. It's never quite managed the sort of robotic thought control practiced on the right.

Robotic thought control? Bernard, you are doing a fine job of establishing only your own shallowness.

Robin,

Sorry to exaggerate. I do think conservatives tend to be more uniform in their views, though certainly not monolithic, than liberals. No doubt others see it differently.

"Yeah, not like the good-natured fun of Rush Limbaugh calling a child ugly because he doesn't like her father

No go, Orbitron. Rush apologized in person to Hillary recently for that because he saw it as a jest back in the day and didn't think about what harm he was doing. Careless? Yes. Heartless? No."

He said it, didn't he? The fact that, according to you, he apologized later has no bearing on the fact that a decent human being -- especially one who constantly harps on the theme of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions -- wouldn't have thought of making a joke like that in the first place.

Why is it that every time I see a debater descending into the genitalia wars, it's always one from the allegedly enlightened left?

Because the debaters on the right do not acknowledge the existence of genitalia. That is the same reason that they are so interested in laws that restrict sexual behavior. At least those on the left still have genetalia to discuss.

Bernard:

I do think conservatives tend to be more uniform in their views, though certainly not monolithic, than liberals.

You do? Interesting. I can't think of a major policy question on which there aren't deep divisions among people whom the media, at any rate, would label "conservative." Just try to find a "conservative" consensus on foreign policy, or on any number of domestic issues (the death penalty? Abortion? The environment? Drug legalization? Immigration?).

I really can't think of any single-issue position that would disqualify one from being called "conservative," or even "right-wing." Look at Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage; look at National Review on the drug question.

But is there such a creature as a "pro-life liberal"? There are Democrats who oppose abortion, but that's not the same thing. No one describes them as "liberal." The same goes for affirmative action and (I think) school vouchers — there are questions to which there is only one right answer if you're to remain in the club.

google search

democrats are nazis 8 hits

republicans are nazis 58 hits

Imagine a woman who believes the following: she supported the war in Iraq; she thinks large tax cuts just now are a bad idea; that school vouchers are a good idea; that careful regulation of activities likely to harm the environment is necessary; that affirmative action in college admissions is pernicious; that capital punishment is unnecessary and wrong; that Roe v. Wade was badly decided and ought to be overruled.

Liberal, or conservative? I submit that "liberal" is ruled out by several positions, and "conservative" by none.

Mailer was praised to the heavens for his tome "The White Negro" in the Village Voice 46 years ago, and has been going back to that same theme over and over again since then. He also has not been known for his witty reposte when under attack, preferring macho threats to any civil dialogue, so his response to Miller is pretty much in character, too. (Although Norm may have stumbled onto a bit of a point with the "Monday Night Football" crack, but not the one he intended. Play-by-play man Al Michaels was a big time supporter of Bush in the 2000 election cycle, when he and Miller were sharing the MNF booth. Miller left when Madden arrived, but some of Al's pre-9/11 political conservatism may have rubbed off on Miller).

Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice is very liberal when it comes to the 1st Amendment, but he is also pro-life at the same time.

Nifty comeback by Amos. That 'Nazi' tag really is a nasty thing thrown around far too much and far too easily.

What was the term that got a whole lot of play a while back ? 'Femi-nazi' I think it was. Can't recall who coined it, though. One of those malicious bastards on the left, no doubt.

Cheers,

That's absolutely the last time I give Norman Mailer my proxy to respond to issues of the day!

I did my own google search. "Republicans are douchebags" yielded 1 hit, "Democrats are douchebags" no hits, and "objectivists are douchebags" 1,800 hits. I am seriously sick and tired of the statist monopoly in dispensing the 'douchebag' label.

Seriously though, why was the title of the entry "Bloggers Can Do Better Than That"?

Andy Freeman wrote:
"liberals are pussies" is not a genital remark

(This is too funny.)

" any more than "blockhead" is a comment upon the shape of someone's head."

I see. So in the way that you believe "liberals are pussies" has no implied insult to virility/uxority or potency. I see (and disagree).

FYI, "dickless conservatives" got no results in a Google newsgroup search, but "dickless liberals" got 6 results. "Dickless democrats" got 9 results; "Dickless republicans" got 17 results. Given the number of synonyms there are for (male) genitalia, this may be a rich field for research.

> Megan, the plural of anecdote is not data.

"However, anecdote trumps quantitative non sequitor."

Depends on able you are to sequit. The google search I did discounted Megan's anecdotal observation. More research on this vital area is obviously needed. Let's apply for a NIH grant.

(Sequitur, BTW. Gerund, not 1st first person passive voice.)

Google for "rush limp". Rushophobes aren't referring to his gait. Liberal thinking sure is low.

Google for "rush limp". Rushophobes aren't referring to his gait. Liberal thinking sure is low.

Google-search hits as evidence have never carried that much weight with me. Google-searches whose hit counts don't even break a hundred are laughable.

Frank C: I think you're strengthening my point. I've never heard anyone call Nat Hentoff a "liberal," though I have heard him called a "conservative," many times. Inference: You can write for the Village Voice and be a tireless champion of free speech and be counted "conservative." You cannot be pro-life and be counted "liberal."

"Google for "rush limp"."

I get 35 hits for Rush & Limp Bizkit?

"Liberal thinking sure is low.""

If my fellow liberals are slagging off Progressive Rock, then far be it from me to stop them. Though I'd think Yes, Alan Parsons Project and Emerson, Lake & Palmer are guilty of far greater crimes against humanity than Rush.

Actually Jane, Rush makes reference to the "2-inch crowd"

Talking about the left? No, He's talking about those who get upset when Women do anything of note. Most recent references when they got upset and began to claim the Jessica Lynch was all made up to provide feminists with more ammunition.

Michelle Dulak: 'You cannot be pro-life and be counted "liberal."'

You can't be pro-choice and be the Republican candidate for president. It doesn't really matter that there are a few token pro-choicers in the party whose views on the matter carry no weight.

Jane argues that she only sees left-wingers making jokes about the genitals of their political opponents.

Commentors point out a number of counterexamples.

Jane says that none of these count, for some previously unstated reason.

Christ. We are all dumber for having read this.

Orbitron: Who said anything about Republicans? I was talking liberal vs. conservative, not Democratic vs. Republican. There are pro-choice Republicans; there are pro-life Democrats too. I think it's obvious which group has a better shot at a Presidential nomination. Christine Todd Whitman was being talked about seriously as a vice-Presidential candidate not so long ago. Can you imagine any pro-life Democrat getting even that far?

My point was that there are controversial single issues that disqualify one from being called "liberal," while there's no equivalent for the label "conservative" that I know of. In fact, espousing a particular position on any one of a dozen logically unrelated questions makes you "right-wing."

Just look at the press coverage of Pim Fortuyn for a vivid example. "Gay sociology professor into casual sex and recreational drugs" doesn't exactly scream "right-wing" to me, but it only takes one disqualifying belief, and there was one.

Michelle Dulak: "Who said anything about Republicans? I was talking liberal vs. conservative, not Democratic vs. Republican."

I don't any use in making this distinction, but if you say I'm missing the point, then OK.

Orbitron: I suppose no one else is reading this thread by now, but . . .

"Conservative" and "liberal" are the names of political positions. "Democrat" and "Republican" are the names of opposing teams.

The comment I originally responded to was that "conservatives tend to be more uniform in their views, though certainly not monolithic, than liberals." And I stand by my statement that that's nonsense, at least if by "conservative" you mean someone regularly called "conservative" in the press.

You can find "conservatives" for and against stem-cell research, "conservatives" for and against tariffs, "conservatives" for and against drug legalization, "conservatives" for and against tax cuts, hawkish "conservatives" and isolationist "conservatives," &c., &c.

The reason for all the variety is that "conservative" is being defined as "not-liberal." If you dissent from any one liberal position (e.g., you want a smaller government or are pro-life or want more military spending or favor school vouchers or belong to the NRA or . . . well, you can write the rest yourself), then you are a not-liberal, and are obliged to be "conservative."

Whereas "liberal" isn't defined negatively. National Review is not a liberal magazine because it's in favor of drug legalization. The Pope is not liberal because he wants us to drop the Cuba embargo. One position doesn't make you liberal; you've gotta take the whole danged package.

But Michelle, isn't it lovely to have a whole thread for just the two of us?

'The reason for all the variety is that "conservative" is being defined as "not-liberal." If you dissent from any one liberal position (e.g., you want a smaller government or are pro-life or want more military spending or favor school vouchers or belong to the NRA or . . . well, you can write the rest yourself), then you are a not-liberal, and are obliged to be "conservative."'

I follow your thinking, but I am not sure I understand who is doing the defining. Are you saying that liberals are expelling ideological deviationists from the fold?

Forget the right/left junk. What's clear is that Mailer has given a devastating - unanswerable -response to Miller. Challenging his manhood was bad but dragging up Miller's Monday Night Football foray was just too cold.

I suppose this is the punishment that Dennis deserves for not knowing better than to pick a fight with America's foremost expert in Freudian analysis.

"If you dissent from any one liberal position (e.g., you want a smaller government or are pro-life or want more military spending or favor school vouchers or belong to the NRA or . . . well, you can write the rest yourself), then you are a not-liberal, and are obliged to be 'conservative.'

Not so. There is disagreement among liberals on tax policy, trade, the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, military spending, and many other things.

How many pro-gun control "conservatives" are there?

The probability that EITHER a pro-choice Republican or an anti-abortion Democrat will be nominated for President in the near future is nil. Look at what happened to Bush, Sr. The idea that Whitman's "consideration" was anything but a PR gesture is a joke.

And look at the tax cuts. Where are all these conservative opponents? What happened to the people who were screaming about Balanced Budget Amendments a few years ago. They got the word to stop, so "poof" went their principles.

And I would consider Hentoff a liberal.

Bernard Yomtov: I take your point, sort of. I wasn't arguing that "liberals" are a monolithic mob; I was arguing against the idea that "conservatives" are a monolithic mob. I really think there is more variety on particular issues among so-called "conservatives" than among so-called "liberals."

Note to Orbitron: I'm not talking about self-descriptions, but media depictions. To the media, by and large, a libertarian and a populist, protectionist social conservative of the Pat Buchanan type are both "conservatives," even though they disagree on almost every subject. The libertarian is a "conservative" because he wants free trade and a smaller government. The Buchananite is a "conservative" because he wants to ban abortion, limit immigration, whatever. Do these positions logically have anything whatever to do with one another? Of course they don't (you can prove it by watching the Buchananite and the libertarian perpetually at one another's throats).

The only thing they have in common is that both of them oppose in some way a particular ideal. It involves a powerful and busy central government, but it's resolutely nonjudgmental as regards moral issues (except, of course, when it comes to people who make moral judgments, which are the one thing it can't tolerate). Well, the libertarians dislike the strong central government, and the social conservatives dislike being the only people on the earth who can be insulted as a class with impunity, so they get thrown into the same "conservative" hopper despite having nothing else whatever in common with one another.

Bernard, if you can think of two groups so utterly opposed that are both called "liberal" merely because they each disagree with one conservative position or another, I should be interested to hear it.

And look at the tax cuts. Where are all these conservative opponents?

Well, I'd start with Andrew Sullivan, who has been complaining very vocally about Bush's tax policy for a long time now — quite rightly, in my view. But, see, he's another case in point. You can be pro-gay-marriage and anti-tax-cut and still be "conservative." You can have a long running feud with National Review and still be "conservative."

> How many pro-gun control "conservatives" are there?

Which definition of "gun control" and "conservative" are we using?

Comments are Closed.