Here’s something about the theory of cognitive dissonance. Yes, in fact, finding out that positions in which you have an emotional involvement don’t square with reality does piss people off. Note that no one said that conservatism in general doesn’t square with reality.
No, the very distinct point being made by RTA is that conservatism “relies on hate, fear, and superstition to perpetuate itself.” It is for this, I would like evidential support posted. Since that cannot be done, the assertion is a baseless accusation; an opinion steeped in ignorance; an offense to persons who would call themselves conservatives. And not of any less importance, it has not a damned thing to do with the OP. RTA simply wishes to demonize conservatism and has created an opportunity to attempt to do so.
And people wonder why the level of “debate” around here has sunk so low. It’s because of shit like this being interjected where it has no place. I know, you and the rest of the lefties here believe it is perpetrated to a far greater extent by the right wingers, so spare your breath, but that’s something else for which no one has any evidence. Which makes it, too, unfounded rubbish.
Actually Seymour Hersh tackles this in his piece in The New Yorker.
A helpful maxim to remember is “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.”
Mr. Svinlesha, good to see you again. I think the quote above answers your question as well.
Enjoy,
Steven
OK, sure.
Bush-league conservatism uses hate, fear, and superstition as the core building blocks of its very foundation. These blocks are weapons, which are used to bludgeon and shame the American populace into hopefully (for them anyway) allowing them to squeak back into office come November.
Examples, you say? Consider these familiar talking points:
Hatred of the liberal media (whatever that means). Hatred towards Saddam. Hatred towards Iran and North Korea and Cuba. Hatred towards the French. Hatred towards Osama (his family’s cool). Hatred towards both Clintons (a big one). Hatred towards Ted Kennedy. Hatred towards Barbara Striesand and all the rich Hollywood liberals. Hatred towards Richard Clarke and all the would-be whistle-blowers. Hatred towards the Dixie Chicks, Al Franken, Michael Moore et al.
Fear of terror. Fear of the UN. Fear of getting one’s guns taken away by the Man. Fear of crime. Fear of criminals released from jail. Fear that abortions will become as common as the common cold. Fear of “activist liberal judges”. Fear that only a strongman can protect us. Fear of President Hillary. Fear of President Kerry. Fear of young punk kids with MTV values. Fear of the consequences of permitting gay marriage. Fear of getting your head cut off. Fear of higher taxes.
Superstition? Basically, that America was chosen by the gods and that Americans are the chosen people of the gods. (Not those lesser, idolatrous gods over there, mind you - ours). And that the end may be near, and we need to be ready for the end times. That when the gods come back - and that could be any day - they will inspect us to see if we pass muster, so we need to behave in a way that is pleasing to the gods. And we need to make sure that more people act this way, so that the gods will see that we’ve been good stewards.
(I’m hip to the notion that some may be offended by this last bit but unless the cracks in the facade start to spread, the very religious will again be voting for Bush - is it not reasonable to say? That the Christian vote - without it, Bush is nothing? Because Democrats are secular? Why, I just saw a poll today that says among Catholics, (Protestant) Bush leads (Catholic) Kerry by 10%!)
The above examples all help build a community of ideas and motivate people to vote Republican, because these days the Republican party markets itself as the party best equipped to deal with these threats.
I’m sorry UncleBeer, I was responding to a comment by another poster. I was not aware that every post in every thread had to relate specifically to the OP. A cursory look around any of the boards, even a prolonged one, would certainly not foster such a notion.
As far as demonizing conservatism, I think it demonizes itself just fine without my help. Nevertheless, you invited me to support my assertion and I have done so here.
It seems that the current tactic by the Bush lovers is to try to keep rehashing what has gone before, over and over again, nit picking single sentences or even words. They repeatedly ask for cites for the same information that has been previously discussed and cited ad infinitum throughout SDMB.
So, in the interests of expediency and your sanity, whenever a Bushie asks for a cite, consider sending them here:
Agreed. I’d rather people didn’t do that. FWIW, I don’t think conservatism as a philosophy relies on hate, fear and supersition to perpetuate itself. I think some conservatives do use those tactics, but so do some liberals.
Hey, as one of the lefties, let me point out that I **don’t ** “think the right-wingers perpetrate this to a far greater extent.” Which, entertainingly enough, makes your statement, too, unfounded rubbish. 
Doesn’t stop me from agreeing with your key point, though – shit like this has no place in reasonable discourse. Yes, **RTA ** is being an ass. I’d rather he didn’t do that.
Snort. Your list of “conservative” hatreds, fears and superstitions, is more accurately applied to the Republican Party as it is run today. As has been noted here many times, least of which by me, the guys currently controlling the Republican Party (most notably President Bush and his politcal machine), are not conservatives and do not espouse conservatism as it is traditionally understood. But you seem to already know this:
so I don’t know why you conflate the Republican platform with conservatism. And as Brainiac4 rightly notes, tactics of fear are used by the Democratic Party with equal abandon. Not that that necessarily justifies the perpetuation of such tactics. It’s simply easier to attack an opponent than to promulgate a clear vision of one’s own principles.
I find some of your “fears” rather outrageous. Conservatives have a “fear of getting their head cut off?” And use this to manipulate the voters? That’s just bizarre.
Superstitions? Your list amounts to nothing more than religious beliefs. Last I heard, U.S. liberals believed in the Christian God, too. With approximately the same frequency as conservatives. And the belief that America was chosen by God isn’t something that’s arisen with the advent of the GOP, or conservatism. That very belief has been around since the Revolutionary era.
Sorry to interrupt this fine discussion, but I must ask this: If GWB is not a conservative, then what is he? Is neo-con a more accurate term? If so, then is it accurate to say that neo-cons are NOT a subset of conservativism but another political species entirely? Another question: do you think traditional conservatives will regain control of the GOP and if so, when?
I dunno what label is most apt for Bush and his cronies. It might be neo-con, but I’ve never seen a good definition of this. My grounds for saying he’s not a traditional conservative tho’, lie mainly with his ridiculous government spending, his tarriffs on lumber and steel, his farm subsidies, and the anti-privacy stuff he supports, not the least of which is the so-called Patriot Act.
Doubtful - too much money is at stake. At least not until meaningful campaign finance reform is passed. And by “meaningful,” I mean excluding businesses and corporations from contributing to campaigns and parties, as well as strict and enforceable limits on individual contributions. The PAC’s gotta go, too.
Here’s a good story and video on bunker buster bombs, something the military wants to fight future terrorists. The fallout will be 80-90% contained and will ONLY spread 10 or 20 miles.
From what I’ve read, the neo-con leaders are basically a bunch of former Trotskyites, which is a form of … Communist! So they’re not easily placed on the political spectrum. And what with their leader’s prediliction for supporting torture of prisoners, who know WHAT other groups they should be associated with …?
Another fun factoid about these, besides the fact that they won’t work as claimed, is if we were ever to use them against a non-nuclear country that was a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, we would apparently be violating a pledge we made in order to get non-nuclear nations on-board to this treaty, which is that we would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation that is party to the NNT.
Not too many people anymore are discussing the policies of Eisenhower and Goldwater. I speak of contemporary America. Bush is very conservative, all his people are very conservative, his allies the leaders of Congress are very conservative, the media voices dedicated to propping him up are very conservative. Millions and millions of Bush voters would consider themselves conservative. And as President, Bush is also the living, breathing embodiment of the Republican party line and the RNC is focused solely on getting him re-elected.
I certainly understand and even respect how many people who consider themselves “conservative” in some nostalgic sense would take pains to distinguish themselves from the prevailing norm. Yet I am also reminded of an old saying - that success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan.
Meanwhile those who continue to defend the president’s decisions and actions, while they may not be specifically part of the problem, they are certainly not a part of any solution. (And it can’t be good for them.)
This will become more pronounced if Iraq continues to go down the toilet, but especially if another terror attack were to occur in the US later this summer or into the fall. Then even the die hards will be left to wonder, so Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism, really?
Good sensible post RTA. You’re not alone. Here, a former offcial in the Nixon administration speaks out.
Those are some terrific links you guys have come up with, thanks.
Mtgman:
Howdy! Nice to see you as well.
Yup. Question withdrawn.
Stoid:
The accusations in your cite aren’t exactly new; I read something similar 2 or 3 months ago. However, as noted by Sy Hersch (and Mtgman), it is entirely possible that the administration was constrained from attacking Zarqawi by legal concerns.
I’m afraid we’re going to have to consign these accusations to the status of unfounded rumor unless they can be more firmly substantiated.
Re: Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism?
Here’s another case:
Iraq boosts Indonesia terror risk
Bolding mine. Says it all. It’s not the actions themselves that are at fault…
Anyone see 60 minutes tonight? Quite the scathing rebuke of how the Iraq campaign has been conducted by retired General Anthony Zinni in yet another political book!