The Bizarro World of Today's Conservatives?

[Sunstone]

Some people say that back in the good old days, everyone -- conservative and liberal alike -- agreed on the same facts. For instance, they might have different opinions as to what to do about racism, but at least both camps agreed on what racism is.

Then, the story goes, around the time Reagan became president, things begin to change. It became increasingly commonplace for conservatives to claim as fact things that weren't demonstrably facts. For instance, Reagan's famous claim trees are a major source of air pollution. Reagan had no evidence for his claim. He had no reason to believe his claim. He believed it because it fit his ideology -- not because it fit reason or reality.

And that, according to some folks, seems to be what many conservatives have done -- they have made up "facts" and "truths" that are supported only by their ideology and not by reality.

So, is there any truth to that? Do today's conservatives live in an alternate universe where their ideology and actions actually make sense? Are they just not part of the real world anymore? Are there still serious conservative thinkers? Or are all conservative thinkers these days as much of a joke as Ayn Rand is? And if there are still some serious conservative thinkers -- thinkers who keep at least one foot in reality -- who are they?

Are conservatives any better or worse than other ideologs in making up "facts" and "truths" to fit their ideology? Why or why not?

Is a common side-effect of having an ideology that one loses some degree of touch with reality? Why or why not?

Related reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Ayn Rand and America's new culture war - CSMonitor.com

 

[Darkness]

I am not so sure it is that Conservatives live in an alternate reality as much as it is that they have different priorities. For example, Conservatives believe that if you are "smart" enough to become a big-time CEO who is in a position to rape his own corporation, then it is your right to make as much money as you can. They believe that millions upon millions of poor people in a society is acceptable and that the right of the rich to keep their money outweighs the cost of giving some of that to help the poor.

I wish Paul Krugman mentioned, in his op-ed, that the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was eviscerated under President Clinton.

 

[Magic Man]

So, is there any truth to that? Do today's conservatives live in an alternate universe where their ideology and actions actually make sense? Are they just not part of the real world anymore? Are there still serious conservative thinkers? Or are all conservative thinkers these days as much of a joke as Ayn Rand is? And if there are still some serious conservative thinkers -- thinkers who keep at least one foot in reality -- who are they?

I think they're very good at letting others decide what they think for them. They're very good at being offended, and they're very good at weeding out the things they don't like about a fact or a philosophy, as in the case of the Bible. They sure love the Bible and Jesus, except when it comes to actually following Jesus's lead. Then they have all kinds of rationalizations for why "that's not actually what Jesus said/meant".

Are conservatives any better or worse than other ideologs in making up "facts" and "truths" to fit their ideology? Why or why not?

They are worse. The main thing is that they came to their ideology through accepting what others are telling them. They think universal health care is bad because of what Faux News tells them (among others). Now they have even more outlets supporting their crazy ideology, like Conservapedia. They buy into ideas because they're "conservative ideas".

On the other hand, liberals tend to (obviously, not all the time) come to liberal conclusions by thinking logically and reasonably about the issue. For instance, I didn't buy into universal health care as the best option because MSNBC told me so, or because other liberals told me so. I bought into it because it's supported by all of the facts. I also don't have any more attachment to it other than it being probably the best way to go. If it didn't work out for some reason, I wouldn't feel I had to continue to defend it.

That's the other key difference. Conservatives tend to take things very personally. "Why are you trying to take away my money that I worked hard for?" That's another reason they tend to make things up and create "facts". Instead of seeing that their idea doesn't really work, they are personally attached to it to the point where they have to defend it until death.

Is a common side-effect of having an ideology that one loses some degree of touch with reality? Why or why not?

Any ideology? No. I would say as long as you realize that your ideology might not be perfect, you're OK. The problem with the conservative ideology is that part of its "charm" is that it's "perfect" and completely right and the absolute truth.

 

[Darkness]

On the other hand, liberals tend to (obviously, not all the time) come to liberal conclusions by thinking logically and reasonably about the issue.

If liberals really thought logically and reasonably about the issues, they would be social democrats.

 

[Magic Man]

If liberals really thought logically and reasonably about the issues, they would be social democrats.

First, I disagree. Second, what makes you think they're not?

 

[Kathryn]

I think that people at either extreme of the scale - conservative or liberal - are out of touch with reality and fueled by their own agendas. The truth is complex, and human situations are not one-size-fits-all.

Polarizing idiotologies, I mean ideologies, are destructive from any angle and don't create long term solutions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I don't think that Republicans and Democrats have ever gotten along.

 

[Darkness]

First, I disagree. Second, what makes you think they're not?

Modern/Social Liberalism and Social Democracy are too different political ideologies. Liberals typically believe in a Social Market, whereas Social Democrats believe in a Mixed Economy. Nationalization is not frowned upon. If our Democratic congress were social democrats, we'd have a single-payer system by now. Liberals tend more focus on supporting disenfranchised minority groups, whereas Social Democrats (ideally) have a more holistic approach to poverty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMHO, it comes down to the worst of the two evils. Obviously, Limbaugh is wrong when he says there is no difference between luxury housing and health insurance. Even the poor deserve to get well and go to a doctor. We see big business being endorsed by many Conservatives, and we see big business treating workers in a manner that is unlike any other rich nation. Longer hours, no required paid time off, and less pay. We pay more for health care. There is no excuse for why our school systems are so bad and not to improve it; and teachers especially deserve much more pay than what they get. Pollution is bad, it's not even a question; and fossil fuels are indeed very limited.
OTOH, with liberals, it still has a focus on just one particular group, with the other side being wrong just because its what they want. While Corporate executives do not need millions upon millions each year, not all them are evil money grubbing whores, but even if they are, our society is too dependent upon corporations to just do away with them.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

I would say that the breakup of liberal monopoly of the news media can explain this clash of worlds so to speak. A lot of liberals long for the good old days when NBC, CBS and ABC newscasts were treated as the gospel truth. This is where mainstream was big government, pro-choice and host of other issues.

Then conservative media come to be in the late 80's with talk radio, Fox news and various conservative authors. All of a sudden people who thought alike could have a voice. People who thought that trillion-dollar boondoggles are a bad idea (Medicare), ponzi schemes aren't good government policy (Social Security), appeasing our enemies may be bad foreign policy and killing the unborn probably isn't the best idea either.

But I will happily reside in the bizarro world if it means acknowledging the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security, believing we should defeat our enemies instead of being nice to them and protect the right to life of the unborn.

Speaking of bizarro world, one of the 'solutions' to our broken healthcare system was to expand Medicare. I don't know how you can claim to be in the real world and want to expand a government program and even Dick Durbin admits is going bankrupt.

 

[T-Dawg]

I would say that the breakup of liberal monopoly of the news media can explain this clash of worlds so to speak. A lot of liberals long for the good old days when NBC, CBS and ABC newscasts were treated as the gospel truth. This is where mainstream was big government, pro-choice and host of other issues.

I know I didn't live in the 1950s-70s, but you're the only person who I've heard speak of a "liberal monopoly" on the media. If the liberals controlled the media, why weren't we able to get a national healthcare bill passed? Why was the Vietnam War started? Oh, and by the way, the duration of this "liberal monopoly" (assuming we're both thinking of the same period) was the most prosperous time we've had in a while.

Then conservative media come to be in the late 80's with talk radio, Fox news and various conservative authors. All of a sudden people who thought alike could have a voice.

Actually, I think what happened was that all of a sudden, people with voices started thinking alike. Nothing stopped talk radio from sprouting up before, besides the fact that no one would have cared what Rush Limbaugh said, similar to how no one cares what liberals have to say these days.

People who thought that trillion-dollar boondoggles are a bad idea (Medicare),

I suppose you would rather have it spent in the military?

ponzi schemes aren't good government policy (Social Security),

Eh, I don't know anything about ponzi schemes occuring in social security, so I won't argue with you there... implementing fraudulent investment systems in social security would be a terrible idea if it actually did happen, though O_O.

appeasing our enemies may be bad foreign policy

It's more about not being an ******* than "appeasement." Trying to avoid war doesn't make one weak. Not that the US, at any point in it's history, ever avoided war...

and killing the unborn probably isn't the best idea either.

It isn't, but it's better than letting the psychotic adolescent women try to give themselves abortions with hangars, and crazy stuff like that (it does happen). Besides, the pro-life argument is automatically unconstitutional, because it argues that the fetus is a human being, a person, that is, that it has a SOUL, and the government CANNOT legally make legislation on when the soul enters a person.

But I will happily reside in the bizarro world if it means acknowledging the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security, believing we should defeat our enemies instead of being nice to them and protect the right to life of the unborn.

I don't know anything about the unfunded liabilities, so I'll leave that one for someone smart to argue with you on it... anyways, "defeating" our enemies would make more sense if it was possible without slaughtering every person in the country, and if our "enemies" were actually enemies and not just people who wouldn't cooperate with our "national interests." And I already explained "right to life." Although frankly, I doubt every liberal is pro-choice. "Liberals" are just people who believe in a regulated economy and a strong individual.

Speaking of bizarro world, one of the 'solutions' to our broken healthcare system was to expand Medicare. I don't know how you can claim to be in the real world and want to expand a government program and even Dick Durbin admits is going bankrupt.

You and most republicans advocate the defunding of these programs. Why are you complaining about them going bankrupt when it is because of your own doing?
(Note: NEWS FLASH, not all of us agree with Obama's healthcare plan. Get a grip, "liberal" does not mean "Obama-worshipper." At best, some of us are just excited that we got a president who MIGHT be decent.)

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

I know I didn't live in the 1950s-70s, but you're the only person who I've heard speak of a "liberal monopoly" on the media. If the liberals controlled the media, why weren't we able to get a national healthcare bill passed? Why was the Vietnam War started? Oh, and by the way, the duration of this "liberal monopoly" (assuming we're both thinking of the same period) was the most prosperous time we've had in a while.

I'm talking about the time when the 'big 3' of NBC, CBS, and ABC were the primary sources of news for most Americans. That every policy that they would have wanted enacted wasn't put into place doesn't change the fact that liberals controlled the media during this time.

Actually, I think what happened was that all of a sudden, people with voices started thinking alike. Nothing stopped talk radio from sprouting up before, besides the fact that no one would have cared what Rush Limbaugh said, similar to how no one cares what liberals have to say these days.

Conservative talk radio took off when the Orwellian 'fairness doctrine' was repealed in 1987. Now, we have a free market and in terms of talk radio, conservatives are defeating liberals when they are allowed to freely compete.

I suppose you would rather have it spent in the military?

Cute. No, I don't want my country going bankrupt.

Eh, I don't know anything about ponzi schemes occuring in social security, so I won't argue with you there... implementing fraudulent investment systems in social security would be a terrible idea if it actually did happen, though O_O.

It is happening. Social Security is Bernie Madoff on steroids. But since it is a government scheme you don't hear the usual liberal outrage.

It's more about not being an ******* than "appeasement." Trying to avoid war doesn't make one weak. Not that the US, at any point in it's history, ever avoided war...

How is that working out with Iran?

It isn't, but it's better than letting the psychotic adolescent women try to give themselves abortions with hangars, and crazy stuff like that (it does happen). Besides, the pro-life argument is automatically unconstitutional, because it argues that the fetus is a human being, a person, that is, that it has a SOUL, and the government CANNOT legally make legislation on when the soul enters a person.

Please look up two Supreme Court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. If you want to talk about what is unconstitutional, then look at those two cases.

 

[T-Dawg]

I'm talking about the time when the 'big 3' of NBC, CBS, and ABC were the primary sources of news for most Americans. That every policy that they would have wanted enacted wasn't put into place doesn't change the fact that liberals controlled the media during this time.

What do CBS, NBC, and ABC have to do with liberals controlling the media? Are you trying to argue that they are dominated by liberals, similar to how Fox is controlled by conservatives? MSNBC, from what I know, is a pretty liberal media group (at least compared to the average, but what do CBS and ABC have to do with anything?

Can you provide examples of how they are liberal? No, seriously, I haven't watched them, and I wasn't around back then. What shows that they're liberal-dominated media networks?

(By the way, the time period you're talking about, if I'm thinking of the same time as you, was one of the better periods of American history. Could you tell me what years you're refering to so I can be sure?)

Conservative talk radio took off when the Orwellian 'fairness doctrine' was repealed in 1987. Now, we have a free market and in terms of talk radio, conservatives are defeating liberals when they are allowed to freely compete.

That's probably because conservatives are better speakers and they're usually well funded.

Anyways, can you tell me something about this fairness doctrine? No, seriously, I don't know anything about it. Right now, your point sounds like that you're saying that conservatives have been doing great ever since they've been able to lie legally. I don't think that's what you meant though...

Cute. No, I don't want my country going bankrupt.

Oh, that's good to hear. You differ from most republicans.

How is that working out with Iran?

I keep hearing stuff about how Iran is working on their nuclear program and all, but I've never heard anything about Iran being hostile (yet). The point is, we should try talking them out of it first (if we really feel threatened by it) before getting into another war and killing (possibly innocent) people.

Please look up two Supreme Court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. If you want to talk about what is unconstitutional, then look at those two cases.

I just did a quick google. I don't see what you're trying to say... are you saying that the results of those trials were unconstitutional, or that the laws before those trials were unconstitutional?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

What do CBS, NBC, and ABC have to do with liberals controlling the media? Are you trying to argue that they are dominated by liberals, similar to how Fox is controlled by conservatives? MSNBC, from what I know, is a pretty liberal media group (at least compared to the average, but what do CBS and ABC have to do with anything?

Can you provide examples of how they are liberal? No, seriously, I haven't watched them, and I wasn't around back then. What shows that they're liberal-dominated media networks?

(By the way, the time period you're talking about, if I'm thinking of the same time as you, was one of the better periods of American history. Could you tell me what years you're refering to so I can be sure?)

I suggest Bernie Goldberg's book Bias. He worked in the mainstream media for around 30 years (for CBS). Heck, even Bill Clinton has said that the mainstream media is liberal.
As for the 60's, 70's and 80's being a great time for America. I would say we had some ups and downs during that period.

Anyways, can you tell me something about this fairness doctrine? No, seriously, I don't know anything about it. Right now, your point sounds like that you're saying that conservatives have been doing great ever since they've been able to lie legally. I don't think that's what you meant though...

The 'Fairness Doctrine' required a broadcaster to supply equal time to an opposing viewpoint if the programming was political in nature. This was scrapped in 1987 and conservative talk radio took off. Until then there was very little political talk radio for the very reason of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'

I keep hearing stuff about how Iran is working on their nuclear program and all, but I've never heard anything about Iran being hostile (yet). The point is, we should try talking them out of it first (if we really feel threatened by it) before getting into another war and killing (possibly innocent) people.

Well, they fund and support terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. They have murdered their own people for protesting a fraudulent election. They have repeatedly lied to the IAEA about the nuclear program and now they have just taken an Iraqi oil field.
It's really hard to talk Holocaust-deniers out of much of anything.

I just did a quick google. I don't see what you're trying to say... are you saying that the results of those trials were unconstitutional, or that the laws before those trials were unconstitutional?

In Griswold the Supreme Court made up a 'right to privacy' in the 'penumbras and emanations' of the Constitution. This made up right is the basis for Roe. The notion that the 'right to privacy' that allows for abortion is in the Constitution is a fantasy.

 

[Darkness]

This was scrapped in 1987 and conservative talk radio took off. Until then there was very little political talk radio for the very reason of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'

And we have had nut-cases persuading the masses ever since.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

And we have had nut-cases persuading the masses ever since.

Good one, Socrates.

 

[Darkness]

Good one, Socrates.

Don't get me wrong, there is a steady supply of crazies liberals in the media. Olbermann and Matthews are an embarrassment.

The one conservative source I enjoy is Front Porch Republic, though they are traditional conservatives, not modern conservatives.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

Don't get me wrong, there is a steady supply of crazies liberals in the media. Olbermann and Matthews are an embarrassment.

The one conservative source I enjoy is Front Porch Republic, though they are traditional conservatives, not modern conservatives.

So, you do listen to a lot of talk radio?

 

[Darkness]

So, you do listen to a lot of talk radio?

I listen to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Steve Malzberg, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh from time-to-time. I haven't heard Michael Savage in a long time, but he is a Fascist, not a Conservative.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Conservative talk radio took off when the Orwellian 'fairness doctrine' was repealed in 1987. Now, we have a free market and in terms of talk radio, conservatives are defeating liberals when they are allowed to freely compete.

In a way, I can agree to a slight extent of the fairness doctrine. If every journalist was a real journalist (save for the ones that are known and labeled as comedy) were being real journalist, it wouldn't be an issue. However, too many so-called journalist use scare-tactics, blatant lies, stretch the truth, and on some occasions the ultimate journalistic sin, plagiarism. It's pretty bad when college students are held to higher standards than professional journalists, which audience is usually much bigger than just a teacher or class room.
In my opinion, political journalism has hurt our nation. It's now difficult to work towards progress, because each side has a completely different story to an issue. Even if a health care bill were to be voted on that was hypothetically perfect, the party that didn't propose would attack it, and try to get people to not support it. And the at the front lines would be the media outlets owned by which ever party.