Sure, but it’s unlikely to be the same 1% at all times. In the aggregate, I would guess that that any-given-moment 1% equates to at least 5-10% over the course of a full day.
Unlikely. The other shows don’t get near 1%.
Arnold Kling’s framework in Three Languages of Politics is useful here. To paraphrase:
- Conservatives tend to view issues through the lens of civilization vs barbarity.
- Libertarians tend to view issues through the lens of individual liberty vs government control.
- Liberals tend to view issues through the lens of oppressed vs oppressor.
In commentary around Ferguson, there was something of an alliance between liberals and libertarians, with liberals focusing on the racial injustice and libertarians focusing on the militarized police, while conservatives tended to focus on lawless aspects of the protests (looting) and Michael Brown himself (robbery earlier in the day).
The commentary at Conservative Treehouse seem to come at the Waco incident from a libertarian perspective; whereas I assume most law-and-order conservative types would side with the police, and liberals for the most part wouldn’t have much of a dog in this particular fight.
The real test of whether conservatives are motivated by racism would be to see how they react to police brutality against a white person under similar circumstances to recent cases involving black victims. I struggle to call any examples to mind. But barring any confirmed failure of that test, you don’t have to believe that conservatives as a rule are motivated by racism; they just happen to extend an unbelievable amount of charity and leeway to police, whom they view as bulwarks against chaos and the disintegration of society itself.
But not always. My very conservative, downright cop-worshiping father-in-law was extremely upset over the Charleston, SC shooting, which he viewed as depraved and unconscionable. And this is someone who’s ordinarily guaranteed to defend cops with the ferocity of a mama bear.
I think there’s a pretty wide consensus that the government overreaches. The difference is over worldview. Conservatives see the whole government as the problem, liberals just look at cherry picked results stemming from the root problem and want to deal with those very specific situations. But if you don’t address the root cause, you can’t solve any of these problems. The root cause is the arrogance and entitlement of government officials, whether they can ruin your life with a gun or a stroke of their pen.
That characterization of conservatives may apply to libertarian conservatives, but it most decidedly does not apply to law-and-order types who would be happy to see police wielding even more power than they already do; foreign policy hawks and national security hawks who are comfortable with a bloated military and increasing encroachments of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism; and social conservatives who want the government to impose restrictions on abortion rights and their own definition of marriage.
In general, conservative gripes about wanting a smaller government, unless they’re coming from a consistent libertarian perspective, are hypocritical and self-serving.
There’s always variation among groups of course, but I do think you have a point. What Arnold Kling said about the issue is apt. But there is also a big strain of anti-government activism running through conservatives now as well. Even in my own head there’s a war.
On one hand I don’t feel bad for Michael Brown. Living as a bully is bad karma, because there’s always a bigger bully than you. But what happened at that pool party was indefensible. The choking of the guy in New York for selling single cigarettes was indefensible(and equally the fault of the lawmakers of New York as the police).
White people respect the police. I’ve seen plenty of my fellow whiteys go right up to cops and strike up a conversation out of the blue. Or ask for directions. Like they’re just anyone else.
As to the eternal question of why the disadvantaged and oppressed on each side don’t join into the ultimate drum circle and unite to smash the power that keeps them both down, man, well…who would organize such a thing? The elites and middle managers on each side have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s hard to get power or riches from the disadvantaged. The pay day loan places already cornered that market, anyway.
Actually, yes. Almost nothing is going to unite “all” white people, but for this to be a racial thing, as per the OP, there should be Some Significant Percent of white people united by this or similar incidents. Where SSP >> the number of people who posted on that web site.
It would make a lot more sense to make a cult hero of a petty shoplifter than of an arrogant nutcase like that.
And if a black asserted the federal government does not even exist, etc., and gathered armed friends and forced an armed standoff with federal LEOs over the point, how much love do you think he’d be getting* from those now lionizing Bundy?
*Posthumously, in all likelihood, again unlike Bundy.
Probably as much love as the black guy packing heat at the Tea Party rally got.
By your standards, perhaps this is so. But I imagine you understand that you don’t share standards with the far-right, distrust-the-federal-government crowd.
By THEIR standards, it does not make more sense.
Do you agree?
Or are you contending that by their standards, a man who defies the federal government would not be admired more than a petty shoplifter?
It depends. I think Bundy himself is unrepentantly racist. But the speed at which his conservative supporters in the punditsphere dropped him after he opined on how well the Negro would do if slavery were back, I’d suggest that your conclusion is wrong.
In fact, I remember stories about MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer reporting that a man at a pro-health care reform rally had a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip, and she said something like, “There are questions about whether this has racial overtones…white people showing up with guns.” But the man she saw was black.
A fact she failed to mention, by the way.
The Bundy standoff shares some obvious similarities with the Eureka Rebellion here in Australia: armed men forcing a standoff with LEOs over the fees demanded by the government from men in their line of work (grazing permits for Bundy, miner’s licences for the men at the Eureka Stockade). So Bundy’s at least off on the right foot if he wants to look like the good guy. It’s a bit harder to find a cult hero who bullies shopkeepers to steal recreational drugs - even in a Western, it’s more likely to be the villain who bullies the barkeep into letting him drink without paying.
I think you meant something like venerated rather than vilified. Carry on.
Yes I did, thank you!
The gun rights movement in CA I support doesn’t care about race. It doesn’t care about political parties. It doesn’t care about gender. It cares about one thing - expanding gun rights.
I voted for Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman because Meg was shitty on guns, and Jerry wrote an amicus in favor of McDonald. The Calguns Foundation will support the pink pistols because armed gays don’t get bashed. Harry Reid was better than Sharon Angle because Reid supports gun rights and Reid was in a leadership position. Inner city housing ordinances which are dominated by minorities in SF are challenged because they infringe on gun rights.
But yes, it’s much easier to call everyone racist all the time. Good job on constantly devaluing the term.
Since when? Most of the super-conservative types of my acquaintance generally think he should have been crushed like a bug for ripping off and defying the Feds.
Not that that particular flavor of authoritarianism is much better, but there are lots of conservative types who were not on board with Bundy at all.
Wow, it is totally impressive how you can take a website that has … wait for it… really, this is good…
A total NINE twitter followers and call pretend that it is representative of conservative thinking.
Are you so desperate to label all conservatives as racist that you will stoop to this sort of idiocy.
Seriously, I did a quantcast lookup on the conservative treehouse. THe numbers:
The Conservative Treehouse
Monthly uniques
134.6 thousand
The Straightdope.com
Monthly uniques
3.2 Million U.S
So the 'Dope has ~22 times as many visitors as the Conservative Treehouse. And the 'Dope has gone to shit from its heyday.
And you are going to try and use this as an example of mainstream conservatives? Really? Are you that desperate?
Slee
As someone primarily surrounded by liberals, I saw what you described from that element. The libertarian element I’m exposed to had some polite discussions about the propriety of the police action in Waco, but it was mostly off my radar.