The statistical proof of liberal intolerance
When I was on the book tour for Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, critics predictably countered by playing the moral equivalence card. Show them how intolerant, racist, sexist, hateful, conspiratorial-minded, and violent the Left can be, and they sputter “B-b-b-b-b-ut the Right is just as bad.”
Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.
Now comes fascinating statistical evidence that the Left is indeed more hateful than the Right. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks writes in the WSJ today about annual surveys that shed light on just how unhinged liberals really are:
Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others? A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call “feeling thermometers,” in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.
In 2004, the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” did have a fairly low opinion of liberals — they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are “extremely conservative” or “extremely liberal,” the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.
Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.
To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The BDS crowd often points to conservative Clinton-haters in the 1990s to argue that the Right was just as hateful as the Left is now. That, too, is not supported by statistical evidence. Brooks notes:
In 1998, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were hardly popular among conservatives. Still, in the 1998 ANES survey, Messrs. Clinton and Gore both received a perfectly-respectable average temperature of 45 from those who called themselves extremely conservative. While 28% of the far right gave Clinton a temperature of zero, Gore got a zero from just 10%. The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.
“Simply no comparison.”
Put that on a bumper sticker.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Sierra Faith
- Plumb Bob Blog » Liberal Self-deception Exposed
- The Whole Bird
- UrbanGrounds
- JunkYardBlog
- The difference between Right and Left in America at DPGI v.3
- Right Angles » Blog Archive » Liberals hate more, says survey
- Statistical difference between right and left | Infidels Are Cool
- Statistical difference between right and left | Infidels Are Cool
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Civility
- The City Square
- Liberal “compassion and tolerance” myth refuted by study « Crush Liberalism
- Dean's World
- Lay Theism
- gregory cars
Great post!
Of course, as any good Liberal will tell you, in the words of Mark Twain, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
On the other hand, they seem to have statistics readily at hand whenever they want to make a point. The fact that many of their statistics are phantoms doesn’t seem to bother them.
Once again, as we’ve seen over and over, the left can do anything they damn well please, but don’t even think of allowing those on the right the same privilege.
BTW - I don’t hate them, I just don’t have any use for them. They’re wasting perfectly good air.
lol, Duh.
Interesting conclusion, but if I could bet on “odds that this will never see the light of day with the MSM”, my house, car, and any future children I might have would be on the board somewhere in Vegas.
Wow, I love when I have a “general sense of things” that turns out to actually be quantifiably correct. No friggin’ surprise here, certainly.
I like the bumper sticker idea since a certain esq running for president said that the war on terror is nothing more than a bumpersticker war anyway.
GSP
I suggested this to a lib acquaintance. She told me it was not true, and that I was a F-ing, neo-con, Nazi-Fascist A-hole for even thinking such a thing!
I stand corrected.
Like AJ says, Duh.
The only people likely surprised by this might be the “centrists.” They try to tell us that both sides are equally bad. Or equally good. Or whatever.
Now we know.
(Rememebr — in the middle of the road is where you get run over……)
It’s obvious their is a stark difference if you talk to anyone on the left on just about any subject, their view’s of the world in general are scewed in some way. The left are not thinker’s they let their so called leader’s and MSM tell them what to think. Conservitive’s are thinker’s and don’t just take anyone’s word for anything, in my experience you will find differing view’s on just about any subject, Conservitive’s seem to want to find the truth about a subject that is supported by fact’s and don’t buy into the left’s or MSM “trust me I know what I’m talking about” montra. When I talk to liberal’s all I’ve ever heard is a regergitation of what the MSM or Liberal leader’s say, tow the party line should be their slogan. The Missouri slogan hold’s true for me and many other’s across this great state “THE SHOW ME STATE” in Politic’s you had better Show Me with action’s not word’s.
#9 On January 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Blind_Mule said:
“It’s obvious their is a stark difference if you talk to anyone on the left on just about any subject, their view’s of the world in general are scewed in some way.”
Exactly.
I recommend Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” and “The Vision of the Annointed”.
Looks like Professor Brooks will be in hiding until the left-wing furor blows over. I hope he is a full professor with tenure.
And the GOP continue to bring knives to a gun fights and wonder why they get their butts kicked….
When the other side doesn’t play by the rules there’s no point in claiming the high-road and being righteous. You’ll always lose.
I don’t think there’s any point to citing their “unhingedness.” It manifests every day. By calling it out, of course, which presented a commercial opportunity, it just foments the differences rather than what we share.
Whether we burn effigies with fire or seer flesh with incendiary words and rebuke the end result is still the same: intolerance for the differences we all possess.
I’ve always enjoyed asking liberals for the exact statistics and studies they tend to cite, when I have debated points with them.
I always here that “They” said this or that. Who in the heck is “They” and where is this proof you keep referencing? Has anyone ever been able to have such information produced by them, when you have asked for it? Or, am I the only one?
I know you are but what am I?
Wow! Unhinged indeed.
Liberal fascism
By observing the tolerant folks on the left over the last couple of years has taught me to be very wary of them. They anger in their voices, the fire in their eyes, and the veins popping out of the side of their heads when they express their true feelings for those not in lock step with them is enough to scare the average rational person. It is nice to have some scientific proof to back up what most conservatives have already learned through any interaction with liberals.
I’m with Tiger. I suspect the professor could get some blowback from this study.
For liberal insanity, just read Deborah Sontag’s absurd article in NYT that veterans who return from Iraq are rabid dogs who are so insane from their tour of duty that they commit random killings. Never mind that Sontag does not make any causal connection between military service and becoming a serial/random killer. She just Knows that it exists. Her thesis is: Military service is bad. Ergo veterans become crazed dog killers when they get out of the military.
While I am in full agreement that the left is less tolerant, this study isn’t very meaningful. The differences between left and right are smaller than the typical margin of error for a study like this.
I guess I was’nt done. When my kid’s tell me that their going to do achieve something, I tell them just don’t talk about it SHOW ME.
Another great Missourian, That pretty much did’nt take anybody’s word for it and formed his own opinion’s althought as the Conservitive that I am, I have to say I did’nt agree with some of his politic’s.
Bill O’Reilly is supposed to be running a segment tonight on the NYT article on this, I think, Larraby. Supposedly, he has been waiting to let his staff dig deeper into it and afford the NYT the opportunity to have someone on the show to present their side of it.
I would be curious to see what the Times has to say, since so many people have been tearing their “statistics” down left and right, since the article came out.
It’s not a surprise. You don’t need a study to figure out that what you see unfolding in public proves liberals are *only* tolerant of those who blindly agree with them - and viciously cruel to those that don’t.
Where as the conservatives I know are willing to debate issues rationally and reasonably and treat with a modicum respect even the most foul liberal because he/she is a human being.
And the argument from liberals is usually, “Well, yeah….but that’s how I feel…” or that they are simply “speaking truth to power” or some crap like that.
I’ve even had one commenter on another blog argue that liberals, by their very nature, *cannot* be hateful and nothing they say or do - no matter how vile - is a reflection of their true heart. At the same time, he argued that *anything* a conservative says or does is a betrayal of the inbred hatred we posses.
For every case of conservative stupidity, hypocrisy, and rudeness - there are 10 from the liberal side.
“On January 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am, englishqueen01 said:
“For every case of conservative stupidity, hypocrisy, and rudeness - there are 10 from the liberal side.”
I think you just low-balled us with that number (10)!
Michelle, out in the business world, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (as it relates to your book “Unhinged”) is called third party validation. And it is as good as gold in re-enforcing your trustworthiness! Congratulations.
Most of us out here knew you were right but it’s always nice for a disinterested third party to arrive at and verify the same conclusions. Well done!!!
Who needs stats? Just spend 5 minutes on any of the left-wing moonbat blogs!
I could tell that from just a couple of news stories.
When Bill Clinton needed heart surgery, Sean Hannity asked his listeners to pray for him. When Robert Byrds wife died, Rush Limbaugh offered his condolences.
Contrast that with this; when Tony Snow needed cancer surgery, Huff Po, Day Kos, et al, were laughing. When Dick Cheney was nearly killed in a bombing in Iraq, those same blogs were wishing he had died.
Any questions?
And anybody who knows a lib, knows the disease is progressive. Much like Muslim Logic Deficit.
Bottom line conclusion from the article: “In the end, we have to face the fact that political intolerance in America — ugly and unfortunate on either side of the political aisle — is to be found more on the left than it is on the right.”
I’m amazed this even got printed in the Times. I will not be amazed when the extreme Left continues to protest its distorted view of the world irrespective of contradictory facts. That’s what defines them and their pathology.
Study or no study, the evidence is quite clear to anyone with eyes. These people are sick and dangerous. That also explains their “tolerance” for savage terrorists but not the President of the United States.
Yep, my nickname says it all but there is a huge difference between truly hating…yes hating…liberalism for what it is doing to this counrty and advocating (like the picture) the beheading of someone who has done nothing to harm you personally.
The left has now excuses or reasonable explanations period.
I’m not 100% certain I see what point meatpie is trying to make in total, but there is one very interesting thing in his/her comments.
The right has tried to play by the rules politically. For instance, when the repubs came to power in 94, they made a rule that anyone under indictment for anything step down from any committee post they have, at least any position of leadership.
The dems do not have and have never had such a rule. (Ex.: Tom Delay’s actions vs. William Jefferson’s actions.) Since you can indict a ham sandwich, all the left has to do is puruse us, get a BS indictment, and one of our guys falls.
The left has never played by the rules, certainly not in congress. In th ’80’s they would even hold committee meetings with no repub’s present, and pretend all is well.
Meatpie is right: if they refuse to play by the rules, we will get creamed and there isn’t much use in holding our chins high while they plunge us into oblivion.
PS: for any trolls that are about to bring up corruption indictments, there are enough of those to go around. The rules here refer to the operation of congress, not each individual’s foibles.
So is this a low score?
I’d like to show that to some liberals I know but I doubt they could comprehend the math. In their frustration they would start accusing me of being a Nazi-Facist-Bush tool that hates children and and start explaining why we must have universal health care now because Cuba has it and if we had it here we would be so much happier that we wouldn’t go around invading other countries like Iraq for which people the world over hate us so much that it is an embarassment to go overseas…..
I think I’ll just make copies and mail it.
May have to move like Michelle.
Which makes me womder.oO has there been a liberal who was forced to move because conservatives threatened them? I somehow doubt it. I also doubt they have to duck pies as well.
I think it is tough to compare left to right, because what we call the right are really moderates who have accepted many socialistic principals (public schools, social security, medicare, the fed, income tax, deficit spending, the FDA etc). I think the far right will eventually emerge … from the left.
Fortunately, all liberals aren’t deranged. A very good friend of mine and I had an interesting exchange of views this past Sunday. She’s pretty liberal. She is a Muslim that grew up in France. So, I had my work cut out for me. It was actually very nice to sit down with a sane and respectful person and exchange viewpoints. I wish they could all be that way. Oh, by the way, she just recently got her U.S. citizenship and she did it the right way. I’m so proud of her.
Just twenty or so minutes ago I made the same exact point as the Professor Brooks on another blog. Pure hate. Simple and straight forward….hate for everything, everywhere including themselves. Their own destruction is welcome in their reality.
My experience with the peace and love crowd a long time ago taught me that there’s a mean streak beneath the tie-dye. Not everyone of course, but get many “tolerant” people going on what they think of evangelical Christians, straight white men, pro-lifers, gun owners, etc., you’ll start to see the crazy come out. It’s only now that you see how far that hatred extends: conservative blacks/Asians/Latinos/gays, Jews, libertarians, anyone who drives a large vehicle, anybody who votes Republican, any Democrat or liberal who’s not far enough to the left, etc..
I know liberals who give me the Kindergarten Argument: “But they do it too!” Really? When was the last time your local Young Republicans club burned Hillary Clinton in effigy? When was the last time the Club For Growth pooped on the American flag? Do NRA members chant out vulgarities in street marches? It’s not even a contest.
Mark Twain was not the first who used that famous line about statistics. Although he attributed it to Disraeli, others believe it was from (Lord) Leonard Courtney.
Are you kidding me? Seriously? This is the best you can do?
First, the equivalence card is being played because it’s absolutely accurate. Assassination chic is ridiculous, but so is the intolerance I see on plenty of conservative blogs.
I mean, you have a jester on the right saying that organic foods = fascism. You have people who want to kick all the Muslims out of the country. You have people who don’t think gays deserve equal rights or even the chance to defend their country.
I’m sorry that the liberals gave two men responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and totally destroyed America’s prestige and moral high ground such a low score. That doesn’t make liberals hateful or intolerant. It means that we’re pissed off and rightfully so.
I’d love to see what Hillary scores with the “very conservative” these days. Talk about a derangement syndrome. The hatred towards her is crazy and irrational.
You’re right, as Brooks said:
The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.
The current hatred of Bush and Cheney is rooted in the belief that this is the most incompetent administration of all times. Whereas the Clinton hatred was rooted in the belief that he was a philandering liar.
Most liberals who are active on campuses and in the media actually have a deep hatred of God, Western society (because it was shaped by Catholicism), and anyone trying to conserve and preserve these values (conservatives). They are truly deranged.
Gregory Stevens,
I’m not. So she is Muslim and a liberal. Then why does she want to immigrate to the U.S.? She will simply bring her values that have made both the country she Muslim country sh emigrated from to go to France and the values that have made France such a mess. She wants to escape but not adopt conservative values that made America a great country. I assume she comes here she will vote for liberal candidates she feels will most help to destroy Israel and the U.S.
Liberals and Jihadists = birds of a feather.
Oops. I hit “submit” when meaning to hit “preview.” Please excuse the errors.
here is a good book on liberalism this may coincide with these studies.
Don’t go spastic, Rusty. I think most everyone realizes that there are fanatics on the right too. What the professor’s study seems to validate is that the left’s extremists tend to be more unhinged.
It’s not an either/or. It’s more of one more than the other. And, as the point has been made above, citing specific events, the left is the one calling for the death, beheading, etc. of people with whom they don’t agree.
I have yet to see one conservative defecate on the American flag. That is quite a testament for something that symbolizes the very freedoms allowing them to do something that asinine.
Nor do I recall a conservative picketing with posters of Hillary or Bill or the like having been beheaded. That is not to say it hasn’t happened. But, if it has, I haven’t run across anything of the sort.
The phrase used on STNG (how Romulans viewed Humans and Klingons) was “waste of skin”. Romulans were not noted for either tolerance nor humility.
Brooks give us the perfect rejoinder to Rusty #38 (emphasis mine)
fixed.
Look at you, AJ. There you go stoking the fire. LOL
Far Left or Far Right - they are both equally bad…
Any examples? Part of BDS that Rusty exhibits is an inability to distinguish disagreeing with policy and true hatred.
To Rusty and fellow liberals, disagreeing with a liberal and pointing out their record (such as what John Kerry’s swiftboat veterans did) is “hate” and “intolerance.” This is actually an example LIBERAL intolerance and derangement because no one should be allowed to disagree with them.
They hate President Bush and Vice President Cheney but can give no rational explanation for it. What they really hate is the fact that they toppled a socialist dictator–Saddam Hussein–someone that Rusty and others wanted to stay in power. They hate the fact that President Bush won 2000 fairly and that the Supreme Court rebuffed their efforts to steal the election. They hate Western society, capitalism, and values that have made our country great.
They can’t come right out and state openly they hate our country, our Founding Fathers, and God, so it manifests itself in BDS.
sausage, you like a little moral relevatism huh?
No, they are not. This is always the argument by liberals. Far Left equals Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler (an example of national socialism, very Left-wing), and Kim Il Sung. To Sausage, “far right” equals Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
To place the latter with the former–which liberals like Sausage attempt to do–is another prime example of Left derangement. For liberals, killing millions of Jews, for example, is as “bad” as wanting lower taxes and not supporting gay “marriage.”
Want to see the leftists go nuts. Just tell them “gay” represents a behavior not an identity. Just tell them that the criticism is for the behavior not the person.
Want to really drive them nuts. Tell them it is not sex.
Sound familiar?
Why do we want them kicked out? When you say things without context it makes it seem as if people have no justifiable reason for believing what they do. However, when given context, it is understandable as to why people feel the way they do about Islam.
We’ve been over this before Rusty. Gays have rights under the law. They have the right to enlist in the military. If you have a problem with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” take it up with William Jefferson Clinton.
BTW, I believe “you people” is a term that cannot be used as it is offensive.
As per the PC police.
Gabe, Gabe, Gabe
I did not want Saddam to stay in power. I just didn’t want to invade a country either. The same can be said of a lot of dictators.
And Bush didn’t win 2000 fairly. You had someone working for the Bush campaign counting the votes! At least that person, Katherine Harris, has since been outed as crazy. But I admit that what really tipped the scales in 2000 was Al Gore’s legal strategy. It was totally flawed. Whatever. I am so over 2000. Only seems fair after the Dems stole 1960.
And, Gabe, if you think Hitler was a liberal you are totally mistaken. Yeah, it was called “National Socialism.” The socialism there being taking the money from Jews and redistributing it. Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology much like Socialism is an extreme left-wing ideology. Which is not to say conservatives are fascists or that liberals are Commies. They’re not. But you making such comparisons is ridiculous and, frankly, “unhinged.”
And with this you have lost all right for me to treat you with any courtesy. How dare you? The Holocaust was the worst thing to happen in human history and about everyone knows it. To accuse liberals of equating that with tax cuts is idiotic.
Also, thanks for the scare quotes around marriage. I’m sorry that you don’t feel people should be treated equally.
Now wait a minute, Mister P; it depends on what the definition of the word sex is.
Or is that the definition of the word is?
They don’t seem to care much for the military anyway, so why would they care about their devout constituents being able to fight?
No, I’m not joking and this just goes to prove my point, more rehtorical regergitation.
So because Hitler had a mustache, mustaches are fascist?
And the “alternative medicine” research in concentration camps weren’t herbs and accupuncture. They were torture.
All humans try to temper emotion with logic, some are successful, others are liberals.
and more….
How would you define it?
The warmth of tolerance form the left.
If that’s what your argument has been reduced to, then I’ll say this - my job here is done.
I didn’t say they knew what they were doing…
Mussolini’s Fascism was dubbed “right-wing” by orthodox Communists as a way to discredit dissent from the Bolshevik party line.
#60 - Just givin’ the standard lib response, Mister P. I probably define it the same as you. My point is the same as yours — libs define it differently.
On January 14th, 2008 at 8:54 pm, Mookie said:
On January 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm, Kovacs said:
We just had a bit of a conversation on “moral equivalence” three days ago here on this site.
Apparently, Ann Coulter’s satirical styling is enough for some here to claim that both sides of the aisle are equally hateful; and this was just a day after Chris Kelly at Arianna Huffington’s site had invented a new depth of conduct for the American Left - dead parent mockery.
Interesting to see that, even after a statistical study of the matter, some here are still screeching and throwing excrement down from their tree branches:
On January 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Rusty said:
Carry on…
people-people,
stop feeding the trolls/trollettes and they will away faster than a rusted pitch fork.
GSP :p
#65 On January 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:
“people-people,
stop feeding the trolls/trollettes and they will away faster than a rusted pitch fork.”
Correct.
As I learned from some poster(s) on this site:
JUST
IGNORE
THEM
Really, I try to see things from the left’s point of view but I just haven’t been successful.
TexasTiger said:
VERY good point! By presenting facts that fly in the face of leftist faith and orthodoxy, he has put his job in serious jeopardy.
Thanks Barry F, great way to end the day!
Meanwhile, Ward Churchill marches on.
I to try and see their point of view I just can’t get my head that far up my ars.
On Tuesday evening O’Reilly had 3 “Progressive” radio talk show hosts & 3 Conservative hosts on. He asked all of them the same set of questions. One of the questions was: are personal attacks legitimate? 2 of the 3 “Progressives” basiclly answered that the ends justified the means, while the 3 Conservatives stated they did not believe they were useful or ethical. Draw your own conclusions on who is interested in getting at the truth or pushing a agenda.
#67 On January 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm, Barry F. said:
“Really, I try to see things from the left’s point of view but I just haven’t been successful.”
you will NEVER be successful, because the left’s point of view is from…sorry, this is a family web site.
Let’s just politely leave it that the left’s view is from an anatomically impossible position….
Would it be intolerant of me to point out the positives with liberals?
Sorry. I’m just feeling a little giddy today, I guess.
Just ignore them is the best thing!
I’ve also learned that presenting facts and the truth won’t work with the twisted liberal mind. I won’t even read what they write anymore because their total inability to grasp reality just drives me nuts.
Good lord our resident troll still believes Bush didn’t win fairly in 2000. Case closed, these people are nuts!
#71 On January 17th, 2008 at 1:54 pm, Blind_Mule said:
“I to try and see their point of view I just can’t get my head that far up my ars.”
Dang!
You beat me to it.
Someone stopped by just before I had finished.
Touche!
Oh! You mean this one I had above, granite?
#75 On January 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm, hatelibs said:
“Just ignore them is the best thing!
I’ve also learned that presenting facts and the truth won’t work with the twisted liberal mind. I won’t even read what they write anymore because their total inability to grasp reality just drives me nuts.
Good lord our resident troll still believes Bush didn’t win fairly in 2000. Case closed, these people are nuts!”
Yep.
Trying to argue logically with them is like trying to defend yourself while being tried for witchcraft - see Elizabeth Taylor as Rebecca in Ivanhoe.
#77 On January 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm, Barry F. said:
Let’s just politely leave it that the left’s view is from an anatomically impossible position….
“Oh! You mean this one I had above, granite? ”
It was that obvious?
Oh, well….(smiles)
Granite:
You’re right. Nobody can be successful seeing things from left’s point of view if you have an ounce of loging in you. You can try all you want but the logic filter goes off and will stop you right in your tracks.
I’m sure I’ll get smeared as a “lib troll” for this, but I am a statistician, and one ambiguous factor that simply cannot be controlled for [i.e., make the comparisons equal] is the extremity of the “political climate.” It’s much more than which party is in control, but also the events occuring in those time-frames.
Think of the economy, the war, the general discontent with the 2000 election, etc. None of these factors were at play during the Clinton administration, and one could make a pretty convincing case that people have a right to be angry about these matters.
Now, I will concede that many on the left are indeed “unhinged” - often embarrassingly so, and I offer no excuse for anyone pooping on the flag - but since the Clinton and Bush administrations did not occur simultaneously, you simply cannot draw a meaningful comparison between the two, unless you can find a way to measure and control for these factors. Until you do, it’s apples v. oranges.
#80
Exactly.
Oops sorry….logic
No amount of evidence will ever convince them. Lack of even one case of verifiable voter intimidation nor independent recounts that later verified the results all point to a massive right wing conspiracy. It’s just so obvious!
#84:
Heard any screamiong lately from the left/socialists/secularists about getting rid of the electoral college?
If I remember correctly, I believe that would take a Constitutional amendment.
…screaming…
Apologies.
jsr:
I am still stunned at the number of people who still cling to that crazy notion because they have everything twisted 180 degrees backwards from the truth. Of course that is close to the definition of a liberal.
Do they have these same numbers for Reagan? Bush I? Carter? It might be more telling to compare these figures over time than just 2 administrations. If there is in fact a distinct pattern over time, then you’ve got yourself a fairly convicing case.
Michelle, you should check out online, unmoderated political chats between the left and the right. They’d be a revelation to you. In chat the left are much, MUCH more likely to fly into hateful rages than the right. I like to say, the left loves humanity — it’s individuals who they hate. As if that makes any sense at all?!
Everyone knows how bad the Holocaust was except liberals, like Rusty. Liberals think toppling a dictator who wants to destroy Israel and kill millions of Jews (Saddam Hussein) is EQUALLY as bad as what Hitler did (kill millions of Jews). That is why they always call Bush “Hitler.”
Want proof: Watch what happens when Israel or America finally bombs Iran, so that Iran cannot annihilate millions of Jews. They will immediately take Iran’s side and condemn the preemptive bombing. Why? Because liberals irrationally hate America and Israel. They are completely unhinged.
Insane-o-crats indeed!
#90 On January 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pm, Gabe said:
“Want proof: Watch what happens when Israel or America finally bombs Iran, so that Iran cannot annihilate millions of Jews. They will immediately take Iran’s side and condemn the preemptive bombing. Why? Because liberals irrationally hate America and Israel. They are completely unhinged.”
Agreed.
I think a great deal of this has to do with leftists’ thinking that exhibiting such over-the-top self-hate and self-criticism is somehow sophisticated and cool.
Rather, what it actually appears to be is sissified behavior before bullies and other enemies who, unlike conservatives in this country, will actually kill the leftists if they, instead, were to defend the the U.S. and the West, and stand up to the bullies.
‘Course, that - i.e., fighting back - would enrage and “provoke” the madmen bullies…and we just can’t have that in a civil, sophisticated world, can we…?
Michelle,
It’s beautifully-written columns like this one which made me a fan of your writing so many years ago.
One hypothetical which is nothing new, but worth repeating:
What if those images posted were of protesting conservatives and the images of the beheaded people were of Clinton and Obama? MSM outrage? You bet.
So here’s an idea: Photoshop those pics to become images as described of Hillary and Obama, have someone post them online and see how fast they make it to the mainstream media; a good poitical trap, too, since then their original origin could be exposed to the general public - on the MSM - along with the hatred of the far left, something about which the general public still remains blissfully - and terribly - ignorant.
On January 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, huggybear said:
I believe we are discussing reprehensible behavior here, not anger.
I am not a statistician, but one unambiguous factor that can be controlled for [i.e., make the comparisons unequal] is the extremity of the “individuals involved.” It seems to depend upon which party is in control that brings out the most abhorrent behavior.
If you are implying that supporters of both parties might be morally equivalent, but that the policies of the Bush Administration just happen to bring worse behavior out of Democrats than Clinton policies brought out of Republicans, than I respectfully disagree.
To me, that just sounds like: “People’s emotional states aren’t responsible for reprehensible behavior, opposing policy is responsible for reprehensible behavior.”
Statistic’s we don’t need no stinking statistic’s.
I certainly did’nt need any statitics on this one all I have to do is talk to one of them.
Do both liberals and conservatives experience anger, hatred, fear, jealousy, superstition, greed and a desire for “revenge”? Sure. That’s always been the foundation of the moral equivalency dodge in lieu of argument. The value of Brooks’ study is to reveal that there is indeed a distinction with a difference between how libs and conservatives handle those emotions.
“Govern, or be Governed.” Understanding that axiom is key to understanding what Brooks is talking about.
Those who achieve emotional adulthood learn to govern their feelings. Those who remain trapped in the amber of arrested adolescence don’t. Adults still feel negative emotions, but in the process of maturation learn to keep them in check through learned skills like selective vocalization and voluntary redirection of mental focus.
Perpetual children do not develop these skills. They let their emotions govern them instead. Puer Eternus and Puella Eterna may have matured physically and perhaps academically, but not emotionally.
This goes a long way toward explaining why “debating” with liberals has the same air of futility about it as arguing with children: for in a very real sense, you are engaging with children.
There is still more distinction, Regulus. When I correct my children, they typically learn right from wrong after a few times. I’ve never been so fortunate with a liberal.
Well, I hate to leave the discussion on MM.com today. But, I have places to go, things to do and people to see.
Have a good evening, folks!
One memorable scene from the 2004 inaugural parade was a group of moonbats in the crowd with a huge F*** BUSH sign. It kept popping up on the TV, probably much to the chagrin of the commentators covering the event. There was a lot of other filthy moonbat behavior but this was the most obnoxious to me. Can any liberals show me comparable behavior at a Clinton inaugural by conservative demonstrators?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/17/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Quite true. Liberals as a general rule believe that most people (although certainly not all - e.g., George W. Bush) are inherently “good.” This child-like belief largely accounts for their fondness for moral relativity/equivalency as an ersatz “argument”.
Emotional adults, on the other hand, are more likely to see the cautionary theme underlying works like Lord of the Flies and will nod in grim agreement with Robert Heinlein’s assertion in Starship Troopers that Mankind has no moral instinct.
I said I was over it! And it’s not like it’s the first time someone had some help winning an election. Hayes and Kennedy both got elected by dubious means.
And I’m the one’s who unhinged!? I said earlier that the Holocaust was the worst thing to happen in the history of the entire world.
And I regret even saying that because why should I have to defend myself from such idiotic accusations. The idea that liberals don’t think the Holocaust was a big deal is laughable.
I have never called George Bush “Hitler.” I have opposed his invasion of Iraq and I would oppose any military strike against Iran while at the same time acknowledging that Iran and Iraq are/were led by evil men.
That doesn’t somehow make me pro-Holocaust. And attacking me on that front is insanely out-of-bounds.
Gabe, having studied the Holocaust and Nazi Germany in college, I am well aware of how evil it was. What that has to do with liberals or conservatives is beyond me.
Now that we have a diagnosis, what’s the treatment? We need to invent more meds for these poor people. Or maybe there could be a cure for BDS. That could be part of their government health care plan. “A cure for BDS by the year 2020″, should be their new, campaign promise.
I disagree, becuase it morality vs Moral Relativism.
The people on the far right hold extreme views, but they are the same ones they held yesterday as the foundations (e.g. the bible) they are based on are relatively unchanging.
What they believe is wrong for you is also wrong for them.
The people on the far left hold extreme views but they are far more mutable, changing to suit their own goals. A good example is Democrat Underground going ape-s#!^ over Code Pink whack-job Medea Benjamin getting a pie in the face (by an even further left moonbat) but they loved it when it was Coulter or Horowitz.
What they think is wrong for you can be justified for them.
I don’t really want to get into this, but I just have to point something out:
Saying that you are over something does not necessarily mean that you are. You clearly aren’t, given that you had to say something about the election being unfair in the first place. Yes, Gabe brought up the election first, but as a person who is “over it” I would think you’d just let Gabe’s mention pass.
Of course, that is all completely ignoring the fact that you have nothing to “get over” in the first place except your own delusions.
Regardless, it doesn’t mean it’s ok for someone to accuse me of not thinking the Holocaust was a big deal.
You make a good point about having nothing to “get over” and “delusions”.
Note the part of that sentence pointing out the delusion about “getting help winning” an election. No the win was a given (close but absolutely a win) until the opponent tried everything to steal the election. However the left can’t face the reality of the events. Our troll isn’t and will never get over it.
Gabe, they are already on the side of the Ayatollahs and Ahmedinijad. How many times does the Democrat party have to sympathize with the Islamist butchers before we can simply acknowledge the truth? How many more books do Democrat ex-Presidents have to write calling Israel an “apartheid” regime, before we know whose side they are on? We hear Ahmedinijad speak, and we hear a clarion call to genocide. They hear him, and think “that guy has a point”. I know whose side they are on, and now many millions of us know.
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty.
First of all Socialism is a leftwing philosophy. Communism is an extreme left-wing philosophy.
Fascism: (noun) A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Socialism: (noun) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Statism: (noun) Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
Communism: (noun) A totalitarian [centralized control by an autocratic authority] system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are forms of Statism. A belief that the best solution is a usually a government solution. The difference between that and the modern socialist is the Nazis actually loved their country while Socialist favor more personal freedom (at least at first).
Liberal: (noun) A philosophy calling for moderate taxes, government regulation of business and investing, a limited national defense, and favor government financial responsibility for personal needs (Welfare).
Conservatism: (noun) A philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (401k vs Social Security).
The problem here is what we were taught in schools. We were told that communism/socialist was far left and that nazism was far right. With democracy right in the middle. They even had a scale for it. Unfortunately, that’s a scale of socialist government. Which would mean that democracy is a form of socialism?
A real governmental scale would show zero government (anarchy) on the far left with a totalitarian dictatorship on the far right. (Absense of government to total government. That’s a true scale.) Remember, we read things from left to right; it has nothing to do with political parties. But if you want it to, that’s fine; Republicans were the original “liberals” or as they are sometimes called “classical liberals.”
About 1/3 of the way to the right is where our constitutional republic (as originally written) would be. Democracy would be about 2/3 of the way to the right. About 5/8 of the way to the right is where our republic is right now with all of the socialist policies we have adopted. Practically all other forms of government would be crowded into the final 1/4 of the scale on the right. That includes monarchies, theocracies, communism, socialism, etc.
Above the scale is a heading that says “Freedom” with the words “More” on the left and “Less” on the right. Below the word “Freedom” it says “Government” with “Less” on it’s left and “More” on it’s right. Arrows should be pointing in those directions.
Draw that sometime. It’s what should be taught in school. No way that will happen. Can’t confuse the little kiddies with the truth that less government is better.
There’s a whole lot left out of this analysis and it really doesn’t prove anything.
Do some “liberals” do some really stupid and despicable stuff? Yes.
Just looking at the data presented, it would appear that 40% of those that identify themselves as extremely liberal must have given the President an average score 37.5. Not really hateful for someone who self-identifies as extreme.
And looking back at the 1998 numbers, it appears that the extremely convservative respondents who did not give Clinton a zero gave him an average score of 62.5. That seems fairly neutral. Did you feel kind of neutral about Clinton in 1998?
Chances are pretty good (based on this survey at least) that we did feel somewhat neutral about him. He was a philandering buffoon who was riding a huge economic expansion. He was embarrassing, but essentially harmless (at the time.)
Times have changed. The world seems more dangerous and we’re at war. We can’t deny that the war isn’t popular with a significant segment of the population. It would only make sense that feelings would be intensified. The numbers have probably moved away from the neutral in both directions.
This survey doesn’t appear to tell us much of anything important other than some people have strong feelings and that those feelings are stronger than in 1998.
Of course, none of what I just said has anything to do with showing horrific images or finding mirth in the misfortune of others. That is disgusting, but it isn’t what the survey was measuring.
Rusty
I have to say I’m a little disappointed in you. First, let me say that I am very sure you know how bad the Holocaust was. I’m just wondering if you actually clicked on any of the above links that MM posted.
I didn’t like Bill Clinton because of the things he did, but I don’t hate him. I don’t hate his wife either, but the policies she wants to implement do scare me a bit when it comes to our country.
These people that are being referenced are some of the most hateful people I have ever seen or heard of. There is absolutely nothing to justify the things that have been done (see above links). You don’t agree with Bush, obviously, but would you hold a poster with his bloody head or wish for him to be assassinated? I’m guessing you wouldn’t based on your postings. I don’t go on a lot of conservative blogs, but lately some of you left-leaning posters have referenced them quite a bit, justifying the irrational hatred on the left. I have yet to find anything or be presented with a link to back it up. I don’t agree with you on much, but I didn’t think you would use the moral equivalency card on this issue.
Just was going through the news, and it has amazed me how the “thought police” is rampant in Europe, Canada, and Australia. People are going to jail in England and elsewhere for what we say here in this blog. Canada has its “human rights and citizenship commission”. Saying negative things about Islam, can land you in jail, in Europe. Liberalism gone amok. It makes me thankful that we can still say how we feel, in this country, though it is being chipped away daily. I wonder how long before we, too, will have to watch our words.
I’m glad you don’t speak for me. For the record, they are pretty lame examples and I wouldn’t call ANY of them far-right. There are plenty of Far right militant racial supremacists, religious extremists, fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis to fill that corner up!
Hitler is now a Far-lefty eh? Interesting take there… perhaps the history books need to be re-written…
As an independent, most of the insults I encounter come from the left. They have a notion of only being tolerant of ideas that they agree with.
It is worth noting that Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University, the author of the study in question here, is also the author of “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.”
In that book, which is required reading for fans of MM, Mr. Brooks used statistical evidence to conclude that - surprise - conservatives are far more generous with charity of all forms (money, time and even blood) than liberals. His evidence established that one’s generosity is directly tied into one’s religious faith; consequently, because people of faith tend to be more politically conservative, the slander of conservatives as “selfish” is not at all accurate.
This should come as no surp