The political divide
Here’s a new piece on a well-worn topic:
Keyboard conflicts occur every day across the United States. A not-infrequent outcome is that for political reasons, people cast away into outer cyberdarkness friends and even relatives: they are “unfriended.” Unfriending represents an aspect of an ever-developing public policy issue of Americans isolating themselves into hives of like-minded others who have no tolerance for anyone who falls outside their political ideology…
In October 2020, NPR explored the subject of political divides, which included the act of unfriending, in “’Dude, I’m Done’: When Politics Tears Families And Friendships Apart.” It reported: “Jocelyn Kiley, associate director of research at the Pew Research Center, said political polarization is more intense now than at any point in modern history. Nearly 80% of Americans now have ‘just a few’ or no friends at all across the aisle, according to Pew. And the animosity goes both ways.”
It’s my observation that some portion of that 80% of Americans with few or no friends across the aisle are in that situation because they purposely avoid people who disagree with them. But others have had it happen naturally, either because where they live practically everyone is on the same page, or because that’s true of their families or ethnic groups or those who share their interests.
For example, I’ve never shunned people who disagree with me, but because of family, demography, and general interests (the arts, for example), I don’t happen to know many conservatives. That makes me the opposite of the people described in that paragraph I just quoted because almost all my friends are from across the aisle. Even when I became conservative myself, that only increased the number of my conservative friends by a tiny bit. Of course, I know a lot of conservatives online, but we’re talking about regular friends in the non-cyber dimension.
And I never had that shunning impulse in the first place; if I break off with a person, it’s for other reasons than the political, and I’m not a big one for using cutoff even in those cases. In fact, I’ve only used it once that I can recall, and that was more of a mutual thing. Since I’m not on any social media such as Facebook or Twitter, I don’t have to deal with the unfriend phenomenon.
Not online, anyway. I’ve dealt with it in person, though, with some people deciding not to speak to me anymore. Most of my friends and family, however, are able to talk politics with me in a relatively respectful way, or we just agree not to talk politics at all. With that latter group, we’ve tried such discussions and come to the conclusion that there’s just no point, because they just stir up frustration and even anger to no avail. After all, a mind is a difficult thing to change.
I have no doubt that shunning happens on both sides, but it’s my very strong impression that it’s far more common coming from the left. And these days it can even be at the hands of someone who never used to be a leftist but instead was just a regular old Democrat. Now such people are more likely to take a much more radical view than before, and to be more intense about it as well.
From the article:
In 2016, the Hill, a Washington, D.C., political publication, printed “Poll: Dems more likely to unfriend people due to political posts,” an account of a study exploring political leanings and unfriending The article said, “The nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found 24 percent of Democrats distanced themselves from people on social media because of a political posting. Nine percent of both Republicans and independents reported doing the same to those in social media circles. Additionally, 28 percent of liberals surveyed said they removed someone from their social media circle because of the content that person posted, compared with 8 percent of conservatives.”
That’s very much in line with my own observations, and I think January 6th and the hype around it by the left has exacerbated matters. I’ve had several people say to me the equivalent of, “Surely, though, you see that January 6th was a dangerous un-democratic insurrection…”
Recently I was at a gathering of a group of people, some of whom I’ve known for a long time and some of whom I didn’t know at all. I was talking to a woman I’d never met before, but who for various reasons I was virtually certain was on the left. We were talking about non-political things when suddenly, apropos of nothing, she asked me, “So, isn’t it something, all this latest stuff that’s happening with Trump?” After a pause, I answered that I don’t like to talk about politics. Her response was, “So you don’t follow it.” I couldn’t resist saying, “Actually, I follow it very closely. But I just don’t like to talk about it.” And then I changed the subject rather dramatically. If I hadn’t done that, I think she would have persisted in quizzing me more.
I’ve noticed lately that sort of phenomenon – that some people are determined to talk about politics and have trouble taking no for an answer. What used to be understood – that in most social circles, politics wasn’t something to talk about because it led to such fruitless and bitter arguments – is no longer standard operating procedure. I actually think that, until I refused to answer that woman, it had not even occurred to her that my politics might differ. When I said no, I think it started to occur to her for the first time, and she was having trouble wrapping her mind around the idea that it might be so.
You might ask why I desisted. It’s because I know from bitter experience that most people on the left don’t want an answer that differs from theirs. Instead, they want to be able to bond, to share some political observations – and hopefully some good old Trump-bashing – with a like-minded individual. In that sense, I spoil the party.
I’ve noticed lately that sort of phenomenon – that some people are determined to talk about politics and have trouble taking no for an answer.
Such as these, and many others among our neighbors, see the world not as Left vs. Right, but Normal vs. the Evil Other … where they assume anyone who dissents from their well-intentioned conventional wisdom must be motivated by abject ignorance and/or malice.
They do not realize, that they are becoming what they sometimes decry … theocrats acting in blind faith, in the gods on their iThingies and in their mirrors.
Bulls, trashing the china shops of our lives because they are Nice People™ who Know Better™.
Krauthammer’s Axiom from 2002 — to understand politics in America you need to realize that conservatives think liberals are wrong and liberals think conservatives are evil.
Jonathon Haidt’s demonstrated that liberals are unable to understand conservatives. It’s more than just disagreeing with conservative perspective. They lack the moral capacity to understand. I think he was the one who described it as trying to explain colors to someone who is colorblind. They don’t get it. They can’t.
Another analogy — conservatives are like those who live in a three dimensional sphere while liberals live in a two dimensional plane. To liberals, all they see of conservatives is a circle where it intersects the plane.
I’ve done it a couple of times. Not because of political disagreement, though there was plenty of that, but rather when the dialog became just grossly insulting to me and anyone “stupid enough” to have voted for or ever supported Trump. It was no longer a conversation or even a contentious debate, it was just rants and diatribes. Sorry, I don’t need the stress.
There is a blog of an academic who spends a great deal of time dealing with Haidt’s work in Righteous Mind. Lots of really insightful stuff.
https://theindependentwhig.com/
Some of the very best stuff I have ever read on the moral divide underlying the political divide. I would urge everyone to spend some time reading there. Unfortunately, no new content in last few years. He’s anonymous. But he does seem to have written an article that was published in Quillette.
Note — I don’t fully agree with all of it. While he points out a number of weaknesses that Haidt and company have, he doesn’t appear to have addressed one critical aspect of the left’s moral shortcomings. Why the contempt and urge to destroy? How does someone congratulate himself for his moral superiority while simultaneously lying, slandering, abusing and destroying others? Why are liberals so willing to treat those who disagree as less than human?
I’m listening to an impossibly long podcast interview of Cornell prof Dave Collum.
One of the many points he asserts is that in general the Left is pushing and the Right reacts.
The aggression is so much greater from the one side.
stan:
I think I can answer.
You ask, “How does someone congratulate himself for his moral superiority while simultaneously lying, slandering, abusing and destroying others?” I think it’s quite simple. The leaders may understand that they’re lying, but they either think they are doing it in a worthy cause and that it’s necessary (roughly, the fools), or they don’t care or know they are lying and are in it for power and control (roughly, the knaves). Everyone else – and that’s the vast majority of the rest – do not believe they are lying. They believe the right is lying, as well as uncaring and evil. So they don’t think that when they criticize the right, even if they do it harshly, that it is slander or abuse. It is merely truth and righteous well-deserved anger.
stan:
There are plenty of conservatives who think liberals and leftists are evil. Some conservatives of that opinion even comment at times on this blog.
I also know plenty of liberals who think the right is stupid – perhaps even stupid AND evil.
I believe, though, that in general the statement about the right thinking the left is stupid and the left thinking the right is evil is somewhat true.
https://theindependentwhig.com/2020/01/06/its-worse-than-it-looks-what-most-people-dont-understand-about-the-partisan-divide/
“It is NOT TRUE that the partisan divide is a struggle between similar people who happen to vote differently. It IS TRUE that it is between different kinds of people. The implications of this are enormous.
The primary factor that differentiates the two kinds of people is cognitive style – operating system, if you will, of social cognition – evident across nearly all of human history, as described by Arthur Herman in his book The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization.”
“The two predominant cognitive styles are WEIRD Platonic Idealism on the left and Holistic Aristotelian empiricism on the right, both of which bear striking similarities to descriptions of left and right offered by multiple other researchers.The secondary factor that differentiates the two kinds of people follows from the first. It is the moral matrix.
A moral matrix is the particular blend and prioritization of six* evolved psychological mechanisms of subconscious social cognition called moral foundations.”
I actually think that, until I refused to answer that woman, it had not even occurred to her that my politics might differ. When I said no, I think it started to occur to her for the first time, and she was having trouble wrapping her mind around the idea that it might be so.
I recall that when Ben Shapiro became more politically active, just out of college perhaps, he interviewed a number of celebrities or powerful people on the left. The interviews were almost like Project Veritas transcripts but without the subterfuge. The interview subjects assumed that a young Jewish guy, who usually wore his kippah (I think), could possibly be skeptical of leftward groupthink.
________
It’s interesting that I live on a block that is moderately social and interactive within a larger community that is deep blue. The block is rather well-off bohemian, and yes some of the residents are deeper than deep blue. I had to laugh at one neighbor who, upon Biden’s presidential win, put up propaganda posters from FDR’s era. National Recovery Act etc. Or modern knockoffs of them.
But …, about 1/4 of the people on the block are conservatives. One is a lawyer but grew up in Maine (does that explain it?). Another is from a small town in inland CA. One left the Soviet Union when the wall came down. One is a small businessman. He was the first to jump on the Trump bandwagon, back when.
Correction: “could not possibly be skeptical”
I have a high school / college friend from many years ago. Our politics then were similarly liberal. We drifted apart after college but reconnected after almost 50 years. He’d drifted further to the left but I’d grown conservative over the years. Our discussions included politics but stayed at an impersonal level for over a year, until he insisted that anyone who supported Trump was essentially evil and an idiot. He refused to back down when I pointed out that I took his statement as a personal insult, and we terminated our communications for several months. We’re since resumed our email exchanges but no longer discuss politics – by mutual agreement. The discussions now are much more sedate and frankly boring, but that’s where our current divide has led. A sad state of affairs indeed, as we’d initially prided ourselves as among the few who could still conduct a sane political discussion. Trump Derangement Syndrome strikes again!
Whatever we assert or conclude about the worldview or interaction style of left vs right, the undeniable fact is that a leftist view point dominates in the media and academia, and is therefor dominantly visible in the public sphere.
As a conservative I cannot avoid the leftist point of view unless I practice some sort of isolation. In contrast, most of my extended family and acquaintances live self-described “well informed” lives, without being exposed to conservative thought save through the mockery of leftist pundits.
Thus I wryly reword the infamous revolutionary catchphrase to “Second, we hang all the lawyers!”
I also move in circles that are almost exclusively leftist and I’ve had a similar experience. As long as the topic is anything other than politics, things are fine. Leftist political beliefs do not make one a bad person, and many of the left leaning people I know are kind, generous, and fun to be around. The part that really grates on me is that many of them fail to recognize the possibility that they might be in the company of others who do not share their political beliefs.
Liberals want to talk politics only with people who will affirm their own political views.
So what does this say about them as people??
Why do they get their knickers in a twist when someone presents a different viewpoint?
If folks disagree about a movie, book, play, music, sports team, opera, dance company, cars, etc., almost nobody gets hot under the collar (except maybe in a sports stadium).
But politics, watch out!!
For whatever reason, a liberal takes it really personal, they get really offended if one offers a contrary political view.
I have no idea why this is.
Must be a personality thing.
When my ex and I were together, I was (and still am) a pro-life libertarian. He was a pro-life moderate. Politics was really not an issue in our house, nor was it something either of us made a habit to discuss with our friends or family. Aside from 2012, we even voted the same. Our marriage falling apart has zero to do with politics.
We divorced, we each remarried, and my politics haven’t changed, but I guess his have…to an extreme degree. When I pick our 8yo up from their house, this is what I pull up to every time: https://i.postimg.cc/Cx5ssnqz/91-C2-ABDD-64-C6-4-A1-A-A04-F-0-AF5-ED5-FCFF8.jpg (their bumper stickers are similar)
In my experience, people typically tend to realize the number of friends and family (and even strangers) you turn off and lose due to aggressive sharing of your politics isn’t worth it, and people tend to grow OUT of it. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a life long quiet, introverted moderate ever become such a loud, in your face extremist like this. If there were ever a person I could block from my life over obnoxious political spouting (something I almost never do) it would be him. Maybe in 9-10 years…
And in the meantime, I now also have to have a lot of conversations with my young child about political topics I was hoping were still a couple of years down the line (particularly abortion).
NS:
Could it possibly be the influence of the new wife’s politics?
As Mr Spook did not really mean like we do (but we entertainingly presume he does), “Fascinating.”
The human mind’s capacity for mental projection and filling out unknowns with introverted assumptions. The psychology of politics.
THIS is one stark area of the human experience (among others), where the ordinary libertarian, out of ratiocination, profoundly fails to connect with others.
It’s like the difference between the limerick and poetry. The former glides upon the surface like a slippery recreational catamaran, while the latter churns up the waters deep like the ocean going freighter ship.
To all posters above, thank you!
NS, regarding your last lines…good for YOU!
Neo – I would suppose so, too.
John Tyler:
In my experience, I have a number of liberal friends who don’t mind political disagreement. Mostly, though, they don’t like to go on and on about politics, either. But they will talk to me in a calm manner about it, for a while, without getting at all angry but merely being interested.
Then there are others who are as you described. The odd thing is that nothing else about their personalities can predict which it’s going to be, calm and reasonable or angry – at least, nothing else I’ve ever been able to figure out.
My wife and I recently attended an afternoon cooking “class”, where about a dozen couples practiced helping a retired chef prepare a complex meal at his home, and then enjoyed it in the early evening. A very effective and fun learning experience!
Until during the meal first one and then several other men spoke up about the terrible Trump. This was particularly inappropriate because we were (mostly) American expats meeting in a foreign home.
The agitators seemed to draw strength from each other, and despite warning glances from their wives, they pressed onward. Finally I spoke up and said “I am not comfortable discussing politics in this situation, which is to celebrate cooking and friendship, so I would appreciate it if we could avoid the subject.”
The bluster went right out of the loudmouths, but they had been clearly enjoying some success in taking over the dinner party agenda, until someone spoke up.
Ray Van Dune:
I’m glad it worked out for you. I once had the experience of getting in trouble for asking that people desist from talking politics. You see, I was the only one on the right, and the others were having fun bonding over their dissing of the right.
Landlord neo “know[s] from bitter experience that most people on the left don’t want an answer that differs from theirs. Instead, they want to be able to bond, to share some political observations – and hopefully some good old Trump-bashing – with a like-minded individual. In that sense, I spoil the party.”
Don’t I know it. I demur only in my preferred way of describing the phenomenon. My relatives, friends, and acquaintances are predominantly left-of-center. For me — maybe I’m either just oversensitive or plain sick-‘n’-tired-up-to-here of the phenomenon (I prefer the latter description) — for me, it’s a particular way in which I’d spoil the party if I were ever to speak what’s left of my mind.
Were I to speak up, I’d be the guy peeing in the punch bowl at the look-at-us-we’re-all-so-cocksure-and-morally-astute leftie picnic.
But beware [smile]: of late I’ve become more and more impatient with holding my tongue in the name of congeniality, and I’ve even served notice a couple of times that I’m no longer going to good-naturedly let left-inspired insults and absurdities slide by without pushback from eeevil me.
I’ve always been a pretty pleasant guy (if I dare say so myself), but in my accelerating dotage I’m beginning to weary of that act. I’m *really* fed up (understatement). Grrrr. Okay, I’ll end the rant before I *really* get going [you’re welcome] . . .
. . . I know from bitter experience that most people on the left don’t want an answer that differs from theirs.” [Neo]
They want your approval, not your opinion or your advice.
What about the Americans who are in the aisle or out of the building — the people who don’t have strong (or any) political views. Are they the 20% or are some of them so turned off by encounters with militants on one side or another that relationships with them don’t last?
It was not a good thing when intellectuals, academics, and non-profits got their own political party. Sixty years ago, they still had to jostle with farmers, labor unions, old time political bosses, and oil men for power in the Democratic Party, and might even vote Republican sometimes. Now they have the Democratic Party. Both parties are dominated by those with money, but rich Democrats have already been indoctrinated by academia and support whatever liberal academics propose in social and cultural policy. Colleges have been on the liberal or progressive side since at least the 1950s, but it used to be possible to disagree, and that’s a lot harder now.
In some circles, it’s come to be considered a matter of good manners and good taste to oppose Trump. Expressing support for him is like passing wind in a salon. What’s creepier and more dangerous is that you don’t see much disagreement about the issues in those circles. It’s as if you have to support Biden’s disastrous immigration and energy policies, CRT, and men in women’s bathrooms in order not to be a pariah.
My sister sent me a PragerU vid (5 min) which explains how “nice”, “intelligent” people can be on the left.
Seems a decently accurate explanation to me.
https://www.prageru.com/video/why-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions
For a lot of people on the left, it is definitely a feeling of “why even give those horrible racist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ hateful people the time of day?”
I read the human interest Slate advice columns for the entertainment and when the occasional political issue comes up, the comments section is overtaken by- cut that rightie out of your life, even if they’re a beloved relative! If you can report them to their job and get them fired, even better! It’s self-evident to them that Trump has committed heinous crimes, was compromised by Russia, Jan 6 was the worst violent attempted coup in the country’s history, and “those conspiracy-believing nutjobs deserve to be run out of society.” And I read this and think “those conspiracy-believing nutjobs…”
Rarely, someone suggests that they still love their Trump-voting parent despite politics and don’t feel they need to cut them out of their lives, and the response is overwhelming- they deserve to have their lives ruined and to lose their families, you need no patience for anyone who is that hateful!
This morning, I laughed at some comments lamenting that a favorite plumber, talented, honest, reliable, is a “Trumpist” and they would so love to use someone else, but they can’t find any decent tradespeople who share their politics, so they are forced to ignore his “conspiracy rants”. Others chimed in with similar consternations of their favorite tradespeople, all oblivious to why they might all have this in common….
When I look back on past politics, I see that politicians I supported weren’t always right about everything, and those I opposed weren’t always wrong about everything. That doesn’t make me want to switch sides but it does make me skeptical about accepting a package of beliefs and policies, not all of which may be true, or valid, or useful. Why can’t we do that when we look at politics in the present?
When I was growing up in Connecticut many years ago the state was not deep blue like now but truly purple. The Democrats were a little to the left of center, the Republicans a little to the right and supporting a different party was like rooting for a different college football team.
One of the differences now I think is that politics, instead of being about issues, is about virtue signaling. At least for the left. Maybe it’s because most people really *don’t* agree with them on the issues so they have to demonize their opponents. Think back to Obama’s crack about those “bitterly clinging to guns and religion”, long before Trump but it goes back even much further than that. Identity politics has been huge here, anyone who disputes the narrative is automatically “racist”. And global warming, I mean “climate change”. If you don’t agree it means you are condemning millions to death! As well as questioning whether those on the left are as noble and enlightened as they would like to think they are.
“I have a high school / college friend from many years ago. Our politics then were similarly liberal. We drifted apart after college but reconnected..”
Similar experience for as A,Patriot, except my friend dated back to 4th grade and I always considered him my true best friend. Reconnected via FB in 2015, and like A.Patriot he had became more liberal while I became conservative. Not really an issue at all until Covid. Via another friend’s FB page I kept posting the data I’ve talked about there in all it’s glory via graphs and analysis. My boyhood buddy objected to almost everything I put up by giving the party/CDC/WHO line. Then early 2021 he announced that a friend of his had got Covid and had died, and that this friend had seen some of my data and therefore was not careful. My boyhood chum then publicly blamed me for his friend’s death. Needless to say I haven’t heard from him since. Interestingly enough, the other friend whose page I was posting on is definitely left of center, but also a physicist. After that public blowup, he asked me WTH was wrong with the other guy.
The friends and relatives that I have who are the kind who will ban someone from their orbit or who cannot agree to disagree but still carry on a relationship, seem to be the ones who are very concerned with social status. If you don’t agree with them, you aren’t of the right set and even associating with you might be a mark against them with the kind of people whose favor they crave.
They don’t do their own research but blindly, and I do mean blindly, swallow arguments and narratives whole without examination or disregard others based on whether or not it confirms what they have previously been told to believe by the right authorities.
Very much like your best friend in junior high suddenly turning against you and spreading lies and rumors about you after an invitation to the mean girl’s table. She should know, and very likely does know, that you’re not like that, but being part of the crowd is more important.
She will, of course react very badly if someone tries to show her that she has been believing lies.
I think it’s one reason Hollywood is so full of these preening meanies. They NEED to let everyone know that they are part of the popular crowd.
I saw a clip recently where Bill Maher was talking with Ben Shapiro. And he says that Politics is tearing the Country apart. He made the point that when he was a kid he never saw his parents talk about Politics with friends or anybody for that matter. It was almost considered inpolite to talk about politics or religion. He said he remembers that they had friends that they didn’t know what party they supported or what religion they belonged to. And that was very true of my upbringing. my parents made friends because they thought someone was a nice person or they liked to fish or whatever. I never remember politics being discussed.
Now he says that we feel the need to “Unfriend” someone we went to high school because of their opionion on the Supreme Court. Even though we haven’t seen them in years.
Sad,
My father has essentially disowned me because of my Trump vote. Strongly insinuated that I’m a racist and care nothing for “the poor.” I never, ever thought it would come to that. Unbelievably sad coming from a man who was/is a great father. He lives his life through a political lens and it has only gotten worse the older he gets.
“some people are determined to talk about politics and have trouble taking no for an answer.”
Have you ever observed or encountered that kind of evangelical Christians where every other thing out of their mouths is about Jesus? I think it’s the same dynamic. The difference is the Christian is invested in a theology that’s been the chief force for positive progress in Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years and the politically-obsessed are invested in whatever the New York Times or their social media feed tells them is important that day.
I mean, we’ve had bitter political divisions in the U.S. before over civil rights, women’s rights, Vietnam, gay rights, etc. It didn’t produce this kind of social atomization and I don’t think it’s just because people didn’t talk about such things in public.
We’ve got an overwhelmingly white professional/managerial class in possession of sometimes extreme and often undeserved privilege which seeks to soothe its feelings of guilt and self-loathing by attacking the very society that produced their privileged state. It’s created a multitude of brittle narcissists who need constant reinforcement and can’t abide any opposing views.
Mike
Today’s tune … take it away Mr. Dobie Gray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF7KU50IY34
…. and Mr. Och’s chimes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
From Mr.Gray:
“Spendin’ cash, talkin’ trash”
“Our share is always the biggest amount”
Yep, that’s today’s Democrat party.
Eric:
I’m sorry to hear that.
“I know from bitter experience that most people on the left don’t want an answer that differs from theirs. Instead, they want to be able to bond, to share some political observations – and hopefully some good old Trump-bashing – with a like-minded individual.”
I also think a lot of it is they are looking for an affirmation that you hold the “correct” views, and they want to “vet” people they are just meeting.
I say this because I met a few people when I was in grad school who would insist on talking politics. Really it was more of a “pontification” than a talk about politics. When I would say that it is best to not talk about something that people might disagree on the look of horror as they realized that I was actually “not one of them” was quite something.
One classmate insisted on knowing my views on various topics such as did I support abortion, what did I think of Bush, etc. When I told her that if didn’t matter if we differed in our political views and that being in the same classes should be something we had in common her response was ‘No, you have to tell me because I cannot work with someone that I cannot respect.”
So, there, right there, is the way some (more on the left in my experience, than on the right) views others who think differently – they just are not worthy of respect or even knowing.
Have you ever observed or encountered that kind of evangelical Christians where every other thing out of their mouths is about Jesus?
No. Sociological ivory-billed woodpecker, which political fanatics are not.
We’ve got an overwhelmingly white professional/managerial class in possession of sometimes extreme and often undeserved privilege which seeks to soothe its feelings of guilt and self-loathing by attacking the very society that produced their privileged state. It’s created a multitude of brittle narcissists who need constant reinforcement and can’t abide any opposing views.
They’re seldom if ever self-loathing. It’s the rest of us they despise.
It’s odd, I almost never have any political troubles with anyone. I have two especially close male friends I have remained close to for over 5 decades. One is nearly an Archie Bunker type, the other is nearly an Alan Alda type. And they both know each other through me and get along very well when together.
Of the couples my wife and I most closely associate with, their politics are all across the board. We have friends whose front yards look like the photo NS posted and we have friends who conceal carry (husband AND wife) and grow their own food, keep chickens and manage beehives so they can survive when the U.S. Treasury defaults.
I will say that I notice those on the Left tend to be less able to keep their politics to themselves in social situations. However, even those friends seem to be determined to get along and have fun at social gatherings. We’ve had parties where half the folks wore masks and the other half didn’t. Maybe it’s a midwestern thing, but politics has not ended relationships with any friends or relatives. There have been some spirited discussions, but nothing worth abandoning years of bonding over.
I had one conversation which is similar to what many of you are referencing and it was very chilling to me. It really got my attention.
It was a very laid back social event. Cocktail reception at a work event where many of us from far flung offices were meeting for the first time, along with vendors and others. Dinner to follow. Emphasis on fun and getting to know one another.
A gentleman started speaking to me and three others. He quickly got political. Very political. He told us he was gay and through other things he mentioned I learned his family was very wealthy. Multi-generation, East Coast, Boston Brahmin, Blue Blood wealth. He then started directly asking us what we thought about certain issues and politicians. As he was asking someone else I excused myself and said I was going to get another drink, does anyone else want anything?… He stopped the conversation and said, “Rufus, what do you think about this topic?” I smiled politely and said, “I’ve been rather busy with work lately, I haven’t been paying much attention to politics.” Thinking I could politely bow out.
His reply? “Ahh, Rufus. You are a heterosexual male. It’s your privilege that you can avoid politics, but gay men like me have to devote time to it.” This is literally a guy I had met five minutes prior. He knew nothing about me. Based on what he had shared about his family he had never had a concern about money, food, shelter. But he was telling these others I was “privileged” and guilty of harming others by my lack of political activism.
I smiled politely, excused myself to get that drink and then found another group to talk with on my way back from the bar. But I remember that moment very distinctly. Chilling.
I have been defriended and it was over my support for George W. Bush, a support that the last 5 years has disabused me of BTW.
I however have never defriended anyone.
I haven’t hesitated to disagree when someone has stated an opinion with which I disagree.
My daughter and I have decided that discussion of politics is nonproductive. Yet, now moving into her late thirties, I see her unhappy with the results of progressive politics. That’s when my political change began. Maybe in time we’ll get lucky in that regard but our love for each other has never wavered.
I’m coming around to viewing a more effective means of disagreement to be skillful questioning of why they hold that view and then asking how they square that view with inherent contradictions in their holding other expressed views. Otherwise known as the Socratic dialog.
Given that progressive views are inherently self-contradictory, the opportunity invariably will arise.
Applied well, that line leads to silence and them either physically or conversationally walking away. Despite their denial, I’ve planted a seed of doubt and reality may over time lead to that seed’s growth.
If not, then they refuse to leave the prison cell of their mind.
People have to want to be free of prison, otherwise they become prisonized.
C.S. Lewis alluded to it when he observed, “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘All right, then, have it your way.’”
“Thy will be done” because a God worthy of worship, embodies truth above all.
Long ago, when I still watched the Sunday morning shows, one of them had Bob Dole and Daniel Patrick Moynihan on. It was a real love-fest between those two guys, much as they disagreed about politics. I gave me furiously to think that this is the way it should be. Autre temps, autre moeurs.
Rufus T Firefly:
A blue blood boor, wealth and privlidge are not the same as class. But he “knows” that you can be made to care about his issues. …. where the sun don’t shine. Times are a changing.
I am one of a tiny minority of conservatives in a deep blue profession, in a deep blue city in a deep blue state. If I cut social ties with anyone who disagreed with me politically, I would live a very solitary life.
But I never am even mildly inclined to do so. Like Neo, and many people who comment here, I’m a former liberal myself. I know their worldview far better than they know or understand mine. What I will add to the excellent commentary on this thread (most of which I strongly agree with) is that many on the left are deeply insecure about their political beliefs and desperate for validation. I certainly was. Many, many lefties are pathologically obsessed with being (and appearing) intelligent and compassionate. Their politics is deeply fundamental to their identity; hence to criticize it, even politely, is usually taken as a deeply personal attack.
While this is true of some on the right as well, it is far less common. Conservatives tend to have richer, more multifaceted identies, many components of which are largely unrelated to the others. Myself? I am a middle aged white male of largely Polish/Lithuanian descent; I’m from a Catholic family (though not religious myself); I’m a husband and a father; born in Wisconsin, living in Washington for the last nine years. And yes, I am a conservative, Republican (in that I vote for them as by far the ‘lesser evil’) and a Trump supporter. Criticize any one of the above characteristics, I would not take any great offense. Criticize them all simultaneously…I probably would.
For many on the left…it’s all about their politics. It’s their fundamental essence. And that’s why they cannot tolerate anyone around them vocally disagreeing
Stan: “Jonathon Haidt’s demonstrated that liberals are unable to understand conservatives. It’s more than just disagreeing with conservative perspective. They lack the moral capacity to understand. I think he was the one who described it as trying to explain colors to someone who is colorblind. They don’t get it. They can’t.”
I have found this to be true. I wrote a book about a conservative. A good friend who was a liberal offered to proofread it. She told me she could not understand the points being made. It was like a foreign language to her. That’s when I realized how DNA and inherited traits affect how we think. It really is an unbridgeable gap. Which does not auger well for the future. How do people who speak totally different political language co-exist?
Some people I have talked to who are Democrats just cannot understand that the government has no money. To them the money is something that just appears. They can’t understand the linkage between the taxes they pay and government spending plans. In their minds it’s all a game like monopoly – the money’s not real and luck determines who wins and who loses. Individual effort, planning, investing, saving, and productivity don’t mean anything to them. It just doesn’t compute, I guess.
“some people are determined to talk about politics and have trouble taking no for an answer.”
David Thompson refers to this as ‘the blurting’.
JJ:
I know liberals like the ones you mention, where it does not compute.
I also know plenty of liberals who are highly practical and analytical people, very good with numbers and science and all of that, and highly logical. I think that for them politics has to do with their identification of liberalism with being good people, plus their sources of political information present them with a false and incomplete picture. They may not agree with everything the Democrats do, but on a very gut level voting for a Republican seems like voting for something bad and they cannot envision themselves doing it.
I have a dear friend with whom I have rarely discussed politics (especially since the Obama era). She is a social worker/therapist and is steeped in the woke mindset, plus her son worked for the 2020 Biden campaign in his first job after college. I value the friendship and tread lightly in our conversations. She recently texted me out of the blue and asked if I was watching the J6 hearings and was as appalled as she was. I said no, I hadn’t been watching, as I viewed it as a show trial and am much more appalled by the current administration. She replied that she knew there were problems with current White House, but it’s nowhere near the level of Trump’s corruption. I said, ah well, agree to disagree, glad we can do that and still remain friends. She concurred, and that’s where we left things. This is a win in my book. My very liberal sister casually mentioned that she and another mutual friend of ours had decided to drop any friends who happened to be Trump supporters. I love her dearly but she has always been very emotional and idealistic. We don’t talk politics at all these days.
I’ve noticed lately that sort of phenomenon – that some people are determined to talk about politics and have trouble taking no for an answer.
–neo
Yes. I stopped talking to half the regulars in my cafe on this account. They knew I was conservative, they knew I didn’t want to talk politics, but they would not stop. Furthermore, they always salted their opinions about conservatives in the most belittling manner.
The straw which broke my back was when one of the most outspoken said Trump said something, I expressed doubt, and he literally stood up and started screaming at me over the patio table.
I tried to maintain a relationship with another cafe guy, whom I found smart and kinda fun, but it seemed like he worked it so I was always coming to him. Then he tried to explain the first guy’s outburst — “He was terribly upset by Jan. 6” — and I replayed all the horrible things the second guy kept saying about conservatives, albeit in a calmer tone, and I just decided I was done.
Cutting people off is new for me. I don’t like doing it, but I have no regrets.
As we became a more “intellectual” country we became a more intolerant one, and as we ceased to be focused on the local community but rather on the national media, it became harder to have conversations with people.
I remember sitting bored out of my mind when my parents were talking with relatives about people they knew before I was born and thinking “Why can’t they talk about ideas and issues and things in the news?” Well, now we do, and it doesn’t make life any easier.
The time that comes closest to recent years in political passions was the 2000 election. People were adamant, furious, and up in arms about Bush versus Gore. I didn’t like either of them, so it wasn’t a problem for me. Lately, there are so many other reasons to avoid my siblings that politics doesn’t enter into it.
Relevant 2018 piece at The Federalist–Our Culture War is Between People Who Get Results and Empty Suits with Pristine Credentials:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/culture-war-results-empty-suits-pristine-credentials/#.W_2WVK_SbAI.facebook
Playwright David Mamet said the “Part of the Left’s outrage at Trump was his refusal to speak in hieratic language….he speaks American.”
See also my post When Formalism Kills:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/42905.html
M Smith: “Lately, there are so many other reasons to avoid my siblings that politics doesn’t enter into it.”
Ditto. Yet still, very sad.
I’m sorry to hear that for you, too.
My in-laws are all very blue. Most (of the few i ever see) have silently agreed to not discuss politics, knowing we’re conservatives. But the MIL hates me, & acts like I converted her child (my spouse)
She attacked us in a restaurant over our anti-obamacare view (which had not yet passed). Out of the blue!!
I was stunned & unprepared, & regret how I crumpled & poorly defended our stand. I don’t do well in ambush discussions.
And since then, when I have to go to their house, she’s apparently been told politics is a no-no, but remains icy mean to me.
If a certain old family friend is also there, MIL revels in having the friend start attacking Trump, & of course she’ll jump in.
I leave the room. I HATE that I feel like I’m slinking away, but it truly feels traumatic to stay & be bullied.
Ahhh, “family”!
Marv:
That’s a tough situation. And in-law relationships can be fraught with problems even without politics rearing its ugly head. When they do that Trump trash talk in front of you, your choice is to speak up and start a fight or stay and be insulted, or leave the room. Leaving the room may be the best choice of the three.
Thanks, Neo. Truly!
Marv:
You’re welcome.
Neo, the woman that tried to proofread my book was genius level. President of Mills College at 40 ended up as number two at the LSAT Corporation. We never had many political discussions, but I knew she was a progressive by her attitudes about many things and her inability to understand conservative ideas. We always got along pretty well. She was more of a live and let live sort. She’s passed on now, but her children and grandchildren are raging partisan progressives. They refuse to speak to us. Sad.
The world is divided into two kinds of people.
Not those who censor others and those are censored, but into those who like to censor other people and those who do not.
This may have been linked somewhere else (it’s hard to keep up), but it’s worth looking at to appreciate how big an advantage the Left has with its monopoly of the largest on-line media: when they suppress the original “offender,” they keep the “offensive” message out of the view of many, many readers.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/brian-bradley/2022/08/16/secondhand-censorship-effect-big-tech-kept-information
“Throughout the first two quarters, MRC counted 309 total individual censorship cases that translated to no fewer than 195,251,589 times that Big Tech kept information from social media users through secondhand censorship.”
I have cut ties with some. I find their support of some ideas beyond the pale. I am middle of the road conservative. And I believe the left is evil as hell. When you have a group
Advocating pedophilia
Pushing alternative lifestyles on children
Freezing parent out of involvement in their child’s education
Advocating segregation
Blatant racism
And I could go down the line…
We have gone past any definable boundaries or moral touchstones in debate. To me, now its war. I still act courteously toward everyone, but, if you want to go there I will.
My doctor weighed in on Trump, unasked for, during an exam.
A former friend who I haven’t spoken with in 15 years speculated to my sister that I wanted to see him dead, because of politics. That is getting into restraining order territory.
Richard Cook, I note that since Warner Bros. cartoons fell out of favor for their “violence” … and we stopped watching Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf treat each other with respect at the time clock, on their lunch break, and before going home – while attacking each other hammer-and-tongs “on the clock” … we have lost the dividing line between “on the clock” political and “off the clock” personal.
Many see dissenters as mortal enemies who do not deserve respect of their individual liberty, and are to be attacked “off the clock” through 24/7 cancel culture: loud confrontations at restaurants, threatening protests outside dissenters’ homes, pressure campaigns to get dissenters fired and shunned as pariahs in their personal lives, doxxing, SWATing.
OTOH, others are passive in the face of even “on the clock” attacks by public figures, blind to the legitimacy of strident confrontation of those who would rob us of liberty while “on the clock”, because “that’s not who we are” … forgetting that civility in response to such dishonest robbery is counterproductive in the defense of our liberty.
Both responses have made/are making a mess of things … because we didn’t learn from Sam and Ralph, how to respect each other as citizens “off the clock” AND effectively defend our rights “on the clock”.
Let us defend our rights, while still respecting the unalienable rights of our neighbors.
And that goes BOTH ways … Leftists, just as with abortion-on-demand, your attempts to “other” us are setting a utilitarian precedent that will lead to others denying YOU the respect that keeps you from harm.
Neo,
It appears that you have missed the point Krauthammer was making in 2002. I know you have missed what I have been trying to point out for a while.
There is an enormous difference between judging people evil because they disagree over policy vs. judging people for engaging in evil tactics and practices. Killing people is evil. Censorship is evil. Othering, canceling, and vicious slandering is evil.
Krauthammer was talking about policy differences and reactions thereto. Not behavior. Liberals consider opponents evil simply because they don’t agree about policies. On taxation or welfare or unemployment benefits or climate science. Conservatives think liberals are wrong (or stupid).
Twenty years after Krauthammer — am I claiming that liberals are evil? Yes, definitely. But not because I disagree with them about policy (with some possible exceptions). Democrats are evil because they have embraced tyranny and fascist tactics. The relentless lying, slandering, othering, canceling, stealing and cheating have become so bad that they cannot be excused as simply immoral or even morally defective. They are evil. Throwing people in jail without bail or trial for trespassing is evil. Destroying Gen. Flynn was evil. Abusing Kavanaugh and Trump, et al is evil. Stealing elections, covid corruption, censorship, etc, abuse of power, etc.
Racist hatred is evil. So is slandering people as racist haters. Democrats routinely slander opponents in the most egregious, vile terms to whip up hatred against them. That’s evil. Especially as they know violence sometimes results.
Perhaps you have a friend who votes D because she wants to save the planet from global warming. I don’t think that’s evil. Not at all. She is a fool because she’s bought the lies, but she’s not evil. Not even morally immature. We disagree over policy. That’s just normal politics. However, if she has every reason to know that the science is incredibly corrupt and incompetent, and she knows that climate policies kill millions of people every year, and she knows that climate policies cannot possibly accomplish their supposed purpose — she’s evil for supporting the killing. Or if she supports using government force to censor dissent, arrest dissenters, and throw people in prison simply for disagreeing with her — she’s evil.
People will always disagree. Good faith disagreement is the human reality. And we should all understand that each of us is a flawed, foolish person who is woefully ignorant, often stupid, incapable of predicting the future and fully capable of believing all manner of foolishness. Of course, we will disagree about the best way to govern. To believe that an opponent is evil simply for disagreeing in good faith is a sign of moral immaturity or even moral defect. But the problem with our current troubles goes far beyond. Democrats have embraced evil in their tactics and behavior. They are pushing for war. And pushing hard. Evil.
I apologize for not doing a better job previously of explaining the difference. I hope you can see it now. Don’t accept a claim of false equivalence.
Democrats think I am evil simply because I disagree about the best way to govern. I think Democrats are evil because of their embrace of tyranny and their widespread use of fascist tactics.
A few days ago, I went over to Facebook, and what should I see but a promo for an OPERA which seems to be all about anti-Trump anger. Checked twitter, and there was a post by one of the few people I follow, Robert Zubrin..he is very pro-nuclear power and pro-space-exploration…again, some shots at Trump. Wouldn’t one think that someone who cares about rational energy policy & space exploration would tend to be pro-Trump?
Today, post on inflation by Larry Summers…pretty decent from an economic standpoint, but he had to add the statement that he generally gives people credit for good intentions….except Trump. Yet in that some post, Summers expressed concern about ‘the new McCarthyism’ on campus (ie, cancel culture)…something almost entirely linked to and driven by Democrats.
There is something very odd going on.
Jester Naybor
No. Any framework of civility is gone. When a group is actively fighting to take away my rights and reduce me to the status of untermensch they are my enemy. Things were made a mess of long before this. This is simply the culmination. I believe the first two words of the quoted article are incorrect. At least if you are Christian in this country. The last figure I saw was 77 churches have been attacked since Roe. It’s not just keyboard conflicts.
“Today, post on inflation by Larry Summers…pretty decent from an economic standpoint…. There is something very odd going on.”
It’s called “people are losing their minds”.
I wonder if it’s COVID-related**, that is, seriously—the illness, the mRNA vaccines, the lockdowns, the fear, the despair, the anger, the boredom…
Summers appears sane at times but then just as quickly goes off the rails, e.g., (reposted from earlier today):
“Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act “Secretly” Brought To You By Bill Gates”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-bidens-inflation-reduction-act-secretly-brought-you-bill-gates
Opening graf:
‘The Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act” – which according to the Congressional Budget Office will raise taxes on the middle class to the tune of $20 billion – not to mention unleash an army of IRS agents on working class Americans over the next decade, was made possible by Bill Gates and (in smaller part) Larry Summers, who have been known to hang out together….’ [Emphasis mine; Barry M.]
**Hmmm. Maybe COVID-related? And/or maybe Trump-related? Yikes! A toxic, combustible, incendiary mixture….
To tack on to my last post it isn’t just keyboard conflicts. 77 churches have been attacked, last I saw since Roe.
Summers (continued);
And if one finds the above unpersuasive regarding Summers’s oddity, here’s something even more, um, “odd” (another repost)…
“Larry Summers ‘Appalled’ At Special Interest Tax Carve-Outs In Democrat Bill”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/larry-summers-appalled-special-interest-tax-carve-outs-democrat-bill
In the above,
‘Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says he’s “appalled” by the special interest carve-outs in the Democrats’ recent tax-and-climat bill, which he says threatens a historic international agreement.’
…sounds reasonable enough.
But then there’s this bizarro statement towards the end:
‘…Summers praised the overall bill, which he says marks “the first major legislation taking on climate change as an economic strategic priority.” ‘
…following which he concludes with:
‘As far as the economy goes, Summers says we have a “very serious inflation problem.”‘
So while I know well—we all do—that “consistency is the hobglobin of little minds”…what in fact IS going on here? COVID Derangement Syndrome? Trump Derangement Syndrome? Stupidity on a grandiose level? Joe-Biden-induced dementia?…
Unfriend my sister on Facebook back in 2018, the final straw was “but ANTIFA is fighting fascists, that makes them good.”
No matter how I tried to argue a point, always emotional fact-less responses.
I don’t enjoy hitting my brick head against a wall, so I stopped.
Once the censorship started, I quit facebook.
Ray Van Dune,
“As a conservative I cannot avoid the leftist point of view unless I practice some sort of isolation. In contrast, most of my extended family and acquaintances live self-described “well informed” lives, without being exposed to conservative thought save through the mockery of leftist pundits.”
Conservatives understand liberals very well. Liberals don’t understand conservatives at all. In fact, liberals believe a ridiculous, cartoon version of conservatives. This was demonstrated by Haidt et al.
Megan McArdle wrote that she grew up in Manhattan and never knew anyone who wasn’t a liberal Democrat until she was in her 20s (she went to Penn and U of Chicago). Many liberals are extremely provincial. Yes, they would think that silly, but they are. Provincial. They live in a bubble. This may explain, at least partly, one of the most interesting findings of Haidt and his fellow researchers (who were all liberals). They had thousands of people take surveys about their political beliefs. Then they had them attempt to answer the questions as they thought people with different beliefs would answer them.
The further left people were, the less accurate they were in predicting how conservatives and moderates would answer the questions. Conservatives and moderates, however, were very good at predicting how liberals would answer.
Two explanations. 1) the information bubble, and 2) the argument from moral foundations theory that because liberals only incorporate 3 of the 6 moral bases they simply aren’t capable of understanding how conservatives think.
Megan McArdle wrote that she grew up in Manhattan and never knew anyone who wasn’t a liberal Democrat until she was in her 20s
She certainly did know several someones. It’s just that non-liberals are much less voluble about politics.
re: Larry Summers and other examples of cognitive contradiction
After the IPCC came out with their apocalyptic projections of CAGW, Lawrence Solomon, a liberal environmental journalist from Canada, wrote The Deniers, a book featuring a lot of different scientists who took issue with the silliness in the IPCC assessment relating to their areas of expertise. In each case, the science that they were familiar with was badly flawed. Each was happy to point out where it was so completely wrong. But each expressed confidence that the rest of the science must be accurate and the case for CAGW supported.
(which has parallels to Michael Crichton’s Gell-Mann observations of the news media and how silly it is for us to trust it in his classic speech, “Why Speculate?”)
Of course, we have to wonder if these scientists really believed that the overall case was supported or simply understood that voicing such an opinion was a career killer so chose self-censorship.
And that reminds me of something that has really bothered me throughout Covid. Once upon a time EVERYONE knew that censorship is always evil. Always. That the Royal Society motto was the essence of the scientific method. That science is defined as the belief in the ignorance of experts (see Richard Feynman). Why have doctors and scientists been mute about the outrageous censorship? We all know that the censorship caused people to die. Where is the outrage?!! I’m channeling Bob Dole. But WTF?!
Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit this morning:
Letter From NY Attorney General Letitia James Threatening Church Hosting Trump-Friendly Event: Pastor Paul Doyle: “It feels like she’s trying to intimidate me.”
Prof Reynolds’ comments:
“To be fair, that’s just because she is.
The Democrats now treat political opposition as a more-or-less criminal act.”
So — treating opponents as criminals would seem to me to be evil. Shouldn’t we call it out? Shouldn’t we identify this kind of treatment as especially egregious and dangerous? Asking or hoping for us all to just get along seems unwise when one side is criminalizing the other simply for disagreeing.
The term ‘deniers’, applied to climate projections, is both ridiculous and offensive. It is obviously borrowed from the term ‘Holocaust deniers’, as if claiming something never happened when there is extensive documentary evidence, photography evidence, and witness testimony is that same thing as questioning conclusions built on very complex mathematical models and statistical processing (which not one in a thousand people using the ‘denier’ term have attempted to understand, even at the most basic layman’s level) and very incomplete scientific knowledge of the parameters and factors that drive these models.
M Smith,
“I didn’t like either of them, so it wasn’t a problem for me.”
Same here regarding that election and most elections. Anyone asking me to pay them money so they can lead, or direct my and my neighbors’ lives is suspect to me.
That may be why I haven’t lost any friends over politics. I genuinely feel sorry for folks obsessed with politics. Not anger. Not offense. Pity. Anyone who spends their waking hours advocating for strangers in a city far from where they live to lead and direct their lives is missing the point.
The unfortunate thing is, if one is too laconic those who seek power will insert themselves into your daily life and gain control over things that matter.
In 32 years of marriage I don’t recall ever asking my wife who she was voting for in any election. She often tells me, and, in recent years it is generally obvious whether she states it, or not, but, even with my own spouse I figure it’s none of my business. She’s free to vote however she wishes. She probably always asks me who I’m voting for for President, but I don’t recall her ever discussing it emotionally, even though there are years we did not vote for the same candidate.
Our politics on the surface often align, but our reasons and philosophical underpinnings are often quite different.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/08/17/james-carville-majority-of-gop-voters-really-stupid-evil-racists/
James Carville: ‘Majority’ of GOP Voters ‘Really Stupid’ Evil Racists
David Foster,
Whenever the topic of climate arises and someone uses the word “denier” or “denial” I stop paying attention and work to change the conversation to a different topic. Using those words is an indication that the speaker does not understand the topic at the most fundamental levels. It is a sign of ignorance on such a profound level that I know I can’t get them up to speed in a several minute conversation.
Another similar, common phrase, generally shouted as a question or accusation: “You don’t believe humans affect climate?!” Whenever I hear that I also know there is no point in continuing on. That’s a debate no one is having, yet I’ve met many people who have conjured up vast percentages of humanity that they have built into strawmen who believe human activity does not impact climate. It’s as if, during a conversation on whether the Federal Reserve bank is needed, I shouted, “You don’t believe people can use U.S. currency to purchase tacos?!”
😉
Neo @10:44, 8/17/22
“… your choice is to speak up and start a fight or stay and be insulted, or leave the room. Leaving the room may be the best choice of the three.”
I live in a very liberal area and work in a very progressive firm. What do you do when you find yourself included in a “breakout” session during a DEI presentation at work where participation is mandatory? You can’t leave and you must speak. I’ve played Devil’s Advocate in these situations. That is the only way that I have found that I can delicately and carefully speak my mind without being reviled as an “evil other”, because *obviously* I, a nice and friendly guy in a leadership role, couldn’t possibly believe what I was saying, could I?
That’s something that astounds me. Many people make an assumption that since I’m a nice and reasonable fellow that I must think just as they do, because only mean and evil people can hold an opinion different than theirs. So they have no reservation to trash conservatives or evangelicals to my face, until I politely tell them that I disagree with their point of view. Doing so usually makes them speechless, if only for a blissful minute or two.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2022/08/18/deep-state-alert-former-head-of-cia-thinks-republicans-are-more-dangerous-than-isis-and-al-qaeda-n1622105
Former CIA director retweeted the following from an editor of Financial Times:
“I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”
This is othering. It’s deliberate. Liberals and deep state Cheney types are giving each other a pep talk to start the jailing and eventually killing. This is evil. If this isn’t evil, evil doesn’t exist.
David Foster,
Are you familiar with the post by Duke physicist R G Brown on WUWT some years back responding to the use of denier by scientists? Something everyone should read.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/
To “Stan”
Hello Stan,
I still occasionally read Neo’s blog and am glad to see that she has retained an ardent and committed readership. Her efforts and forum are well populated and served, and having broken the habit personally and feeling no impulse to return even though the door was left open when I departed, I am pleased to see it.
However … after glancing at your comment, I could not resist one more time, as the name “Independent Whig” seemed to leap out at me from the mists of the past. Especially in connection with Jon Haidt, and bringing with it a particular relevance to your question.
You state with regard to the Whig:
Well, what I think we have here is a two-fer.
First, a blast from the past (Geez, how many years have some of us been beating that drum?) from the Whig. And, with it, a more or less direct answer to your question, courtesy of a wildly uninhibited and almost inebriated seeming Harriet Baber, professor of philosophy at The University of San Diego. https://www.sandiego.edu/cas/directory/biography.php?profile_id=127
Here is the link to Haidt’s thread: https://righteousmind.com/look-how-far-weve-come-apart/
And, because Joh Haidt allowed Baber to revise her comment – no doubt to preserve her professional reputation rather than the sensibilities of her targets – I will include what Harriet Baber originally wrote, just below:
She’s in with the in-crowd, she reckons. Nice and secure. Center of the herd. Plenty to cushion, and labor, and die for her. But, being and having that alone is apparently not quite enough. With it comes an additional impulse for engineering, and managing – or culling – the human race.
It is helpful in further fleshing out this answer to your question to note that she has written for The Church Times and The Guardian. Strangely, at first glance, she seems to self-identify in some sense as a member of a Christian denomination. What that means though, when you actually cash it out, she is not shy about telling you.
Harriet Baber, Church Times
Panoply, role playing, an aesthetic kaleidoscope : all there for a Gurl who jus wanna have her some good energizing fun. The Jesus stuff ? … well not so much. Not at all, really.
And she is also willing to be rather forthright about what may be expected from someone adhering to, and then directing her moral philosophy at you, as well. The article written for the Guardian launches off of the “torture question” with relation to Bin Laden and kind.
But the principles of the moral meta-philosophy which accompanies what she embraces as “Utilitarianism”, are pretty clear once you look at what is left of an elided set of categorical assertions.
**Reference to torture being categorically wrong.
Interesting is it not?
By the way: Regards to Hubert if he still visits.
P.S.
To Neo, if you happen across this comment. Not long ago, I found a quite old e-mail. It was a reply you had sent me in response to a private video link which I had sent you, of “old guys playing [practicing] their guitars”. The precipitating event had been a discussion on your blog about homemade or parlor music, and its relative infrequency in families, or as a family habit, nowadays. I had never seen your e-mail before. I’m glad I found it. Short as it was and should have been, It was charming and generous.
Be well.
@ David Foster > “There is something very odd going on.”
For each occurrence of the word “Trump” in your example, substitute the word “Jews.”
It should start to look familiar.
The people who exult in genocidal manias are always among the population; they just choose different targets from time to time.
PS – it just occurred to me that perhaps they have an additional animosity toward Donald Trump because his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren are Orthodox Jewish; he supports Israel; and had many Jews in his personal, business, and political circles.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/trumps-jews
July 15, 2016 – kind of a mixed review, but full of data
Greetings once again, DNW.
AesopFan:
I have thought about the “Jews” analogy as well.
AesopFan…”For each occurrence of the word “Trump” in your example, substitute the word “Jews.” It should start to look familiar.
The people who exult in genocidal manias are always among the population; they just choose different targets from time to time.”
Yet many of the people I’m talking about do not seem like the sort of people to exult in genocidal mania. Larry Summers, for example, does not seem like that type, though I don’t know him personally. And there are people who I *do* know personally who are strongly anti-Trump in a manner that doesn’t fit their expressed policy preferences.
Stan…no, I had seen it. Thanks!
I am working (slowly) on a long post titled ‘On Trusting Experts—and Which Experts to Trust.” Examples will include the bad railway advice that Kaiser Wilhelm II got in the run-up to WWI, the secret British debate about radar versus other air-defense technologies, and the use of computer simulation in the debate between Teller and Ulam about ignition methods for the hydrogen bomb.
DNW: regards to you too. Good to see your handle in the comments again, even if most of your cogitations whiz past me like a Bob Feller fastball. I remarked recently that I missed Parker’s and your voices on this blog. I even miss Zaphod, exasperating Jew- and race-obsessed cuss that he was/is. But he was entertaining. And provocative, sometimes even in a good way.
Military history, (the alleged irrelevance and utter uselessness of) poetry, photos of New England, and firearms will usually smoke me out. Weighed in on Russia and Ukraine a few months ago, when that was in the news. Don’t have a lot to say about politics. I pretty much shot my bolt on that subject back in 2020-2021. And it’s depressing to write about a once-great country–ours–that is in the process of destroying itself. Maybe it can be restored somewhere. “The Lord looks after fools, drunks, and the United States of America”–I hope Bismarck was right.
As for Prof. Harriet Baber’s hatred of the lower classes, well, she’s an academic. She has marinated for years in a bitter broth of pride, intellectual vanity, status-seeking, wrong rewards, and schooled contempt for people who aren’t as clever as she is. It’s a common affliction in that environment. Nothing a few years of hard manual labor wouldn’t fix. In one of Charles McCarry’s spy novels, the hero–Paul Christopher–spends ten years in solitary confinement in a Chinese prison camp, living on millet mush and digging a ditch to nowhere. The same treatment might work for people like Prof. Baber. It would be highly satisfying, but–alas!–wrong. It’s got a strong Cultural Revolution/Khmer Rouge vibe to it, and we don’t want to turn into those bastards, do we? But one understands the sentiment.
Anyway, hope you’re doing well and staying out of trouble.
@ David Foster > “And there are people who I *do* know personally who are strongly anti-Trump in a manner that doesn’t fit their expressed policy preferences.”
Check out a Red State post I linked in another comment thread.
Related – Trump Derangement Syndrom exhibits all the symptoms Neo has covered on several posts.
But where is it coming from and why is it so rampant, especially among otherwise “normal” and decent people (we know why the hypocrites leading the Democrats are fomenting problems, but they may also be deranged as well as malevolent).
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022/08/18/trump-derangement-syndrome-is-real-and-it-needs-to-be-studied-n613952
David Foster,
Any work on experts might benefit from a review of Philip Tetlock’s work. “Experts are no better at predictions than a dart-throwing chimp.” Dan Gardner does a moderately decent job discussing Tetlock in “Future Babble”. He then beclowns himself at the end of the book by assuring readers that climate science projections are sound, solid science.
If useful, a look at the great whale oil crisis that all experts knew was unstoppable in the mid 1800s. And the horrific gloom and doom of the ultimate Malthusian prediction — the Great Horsesh*t Crisis of 1900 that all science experts knew was unstoppable and would inundate the world’s large cities in plague and filth. Everyone could read the data. The world was hurtling toward rampant death and disaster. Nothing could be done. It was too late. All the best and brightest saw it clearly and definitively. (IIRC Coyoteblog had some posts about these back 10-15 years ago)
There’s a reason the automobile was once hailed as the greatest development in healthcare in human history.
David Foster,
One more on experts. The first minute or two of Matt Ridley’s TED Talk on “When Ideas Have Sex”. The book was good. The talk was brilliant. He wraps up all the standard expert gloom and doom of 1970 in one long sentence. Excellent stuff. The “experts” got it all wrong. As they always do.
Oh, and Michael Crichton’s speech where he lays out the decades of mistakes the Fed govt made in managing Yellowstone. Just jaw-dropping levels of stupid layered with ignorance and sprinkled with large amounts of hubris.
— also Halberstam’s Best and the Brightest and his evisceration of McNamara and the Whiz Kids. Ruining Ford Motor Co with the idiocy of planned obsolescence wasn’t enough. They had to destroy the Pentagon and Vietnam, too. Harvard and hubris go together like peanut butter and jelly.
The financial crisis. Expert misfeasance on steroids. From the govt policies, the Boston Fed study, the Wall Street development of risk models like R…. The most brilliant stats geniuses in the world built the ultimate numerical Tower of Babel with a foundation in a swamp. If the dataset includes no time periods when real estate declines in value, the resulting statistical predictive model built on that dataset concludes that it is impossible for real estate to decline in value. Black swans are a real kick in the ass.
DNW,
thank you.