John Hawkins replies to my post yesterday:
Ex-conservative, John Cole over at Balloon Juice, is shoveling manure as fast as he can at his former allies on the right.
At one time Cole ran a reliably conservative blog, but about the time Terri Schiavo became a big issue, he got a real bee in his bonnet about religious people being allowed to have a voice in the Republican Party, too, and he flipped out and veered left. In other words, he pulled an Andrew Sullivan and got so upset that the majority of the conservative commentariat disagreed with him, that it twisted his whole philosophy.
Of course, he benefitted from stepping to the left a lot more than Sullivan did. Sullivan had a big audience and actually seemed to pay a price for switching allegiances. On the other hand, Cole went from being a small fry conservative blog to being a small fry ex-conservative blog that regularly got links from liberal blogs like the Daily Kos that love nothing more than to read a blogger claiming to be a conservative ripping on other conservatives.
***In other words, supposedly Cole is hopping into bed with people like Kos, Jane Hamsher, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, William Jefferson, John Kerry, & Ted Rall, because he thinks Republicans are mean.
Shorter John Hawkins:
“John Cole is criticizing the Republicans? He must have a book to sell!”
Reaslly, his post (and those like them – I am whiny AND nauseating!) really don’t deserve much comment, but I will leave you with this- John Hawkin’s regularly has polls asking right-wing bloggers to list the worst people in American history. Mind you- the worst Americans in history. Bill and Hillary Clinton received 25 votes.
That speaks for itself, and is part of the reason I stopped reading him about a while ago.
Steve
And of course, when John throws a bone to the right, it’s only to get traffic from his corporate masters at Pajamas Media! Apparently he has TWO books to sell.
Pb
Actually, what are the odds that these idiots are just trying to drum up traffic to their own blogs by getting your attention? Anyhow, this Hawkins guy has a lot to learn–sure, he mentioned Michael Moore and Jane Hamsher in his list of people you are supposedly ‘getting into bed with’–but he forgot Cindy Sheehan!
The Other Steve
I always thought rightwingnuthouse was a spoof site.
craigie
Yes, because that’s what matters – being reliable. Actually thinking for yourself – not so much.
craigie
It can’t be long before John and Sully are linked romantically by their ex-friends on the Right.
craigie
At least they admitted Bill and Hill are Americans. Is that progress?
RSA
Hell hath no fury like a movement conservative scorned. It’s weird how scattered the explanations are for John’s views: he’s been brainwashed by his commentariat; he doesn’t want religious people to “have a voice” in the Republican party; he wants blog links (and money); “he thinks Republicans are mean”; etc. How about applying Occam’s razor: simple disagreement with the direction the Republican party is going?
Darrell
It’s a poll of conservative bloggers, not HIS opinions. How then does a poll of other bloggers “speak for itself” with regards to why you don’t read him?
Also, with such harsh judgement called down on him based on a poll, it’s worth noting that RWNH also polled left-wing blogs, and the lefties put Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger on their 20 worst people in American History.
Rusty Shackleford
John is “in bed” with Jane Hamster’s of the left?
Was anyone else as nonplussed with this list of malevolent Democrats? Is Jefferson even running for re-election?
jcricket
When did selling your wares become the “bogey-man” for conservatives? I thought they liked entrepreneurial Americans and making a buck for yourself? Capitalism Good, right? No? I’m confused.
(yes, I’m kidding. I know they do this because they can’t find a way to discredit someone’s actual argument).
Andrew
Welcome to two weeks ago.
Rusty Shackleford
Darrell is a lying git.
And he likes pie.
Should be working
Sour grapes from the wingnut sites whose former readers seem to be coming here in increasing numbers. Seriously, you must be putting a dent in their booksales and ad-revenue.
John Cole
Thanks ,Darrell. I didn;t know what a poll was.
1.) It speaks to the circles of people he links to for ‘reliable’ info. That list of bloggers coincided (at the time) with his blogroll. I know, I was one of the people who used to be polled, and used to be on his blogroll.
2.) Anyone with a desire to have the slightest bit of credibility would have, when he posted the results, notedthe absurdity of the Clintons being up top of the list. John didn’t. Just the FACTS!
The Other Steve
See! It’s all ok.
As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are almost as bad!
Vladi G
John, any comment on Bush letting the military take orders from the Iraqis and abandoning a US soldier to the Sadr Militia?
The Other Steve
Yes, to my deep sorrow.
But he should have noted that John Cole has thrown out of bed… Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramhoff, Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, and a host of others.
I don’t think Republicans truly understand that trying to justify bad actions with bogey men only goes so far, and at some point people say “You know what. I don’t care how bad Attilla the Hun was, I don’t like Adolf Hitler.”
Darrell
Cole has faced some unfair criticism, but other observations are dead on, particularly with regards to Cole’s one-way criticism on Republicans, comparing the Repubs to some utopian standard rather than acknowledging the reality that the alternative is a severely flawed Dem party. In other words, because the Repubs have problems and shortcomings, that doesn’t mean the Dems are the solution… and it’s absurd to pretend that only one side has real problems.
His explanation that religious right has ‘seized control’ of the Republican party makes no sense, as the RR’s influence is clearly less now than 15 years back in the day when Cole was a happy Republican and Pat Robertson was considered a fairly serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. So I guess I can understand some of the speculation about John, given that he has not articulated well his reasons for making such a change, taking such a one-sided views which completely ignore the problems with the altneratives (Dems). It was an abrupt change, and no real explanation accompanying it in my opinion, fueling speculation as to what the real reasons were for his change..
ThymeZone
Right where they belong, but not in that order. Both sociopaths, but Kissinger has a great deal more blood on his hands AFAIC.
Two guys who should burn in the fires of eternal hell.
Monsters.
Shygetz
Yes, 15 years ago a person who claimed to speak directly for God almost won the nomination.
Today, a person who claims to speak directly for God is the Republican President, and rules over a party completely in lockstep with his agenda that also controls the Congress.
Gee, Darrell, thanks for your insightful comment.
Darrell
Enlighten us then John, does the left-wing RWNH blogger poll putting Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger on their list of 20 worst figures in American History similarly speak to the circles of people Kos and other lefties link to for ‘reliable’ data?.. or is this just more of your selective one-way outrage?
It was a poll for chrissakes, a poll which RWNH, according to the links you provided, didn’t even comment on. In other words, he didn’t comment approvingly or disapprovingly on the poll results of either side.. he simply posted the results.
You claim that RWNH running that poll was a big reason for stopping to read RWNH.. that makes no sense whatsovever. Do you similarly boycott Gallup?
chriskoz
Actually Darrell, John was very articulate on his reaasons for his current view towards the Republicans. You clearly just refuse to listen. As usuall. (Perhaps if his reasons sounded more like a Republican talking point you would hear it. But, then it would be just as much garbage as most Republican talking points.)
Do me a favor… please list the “real problems” you believe exist within the Rebuplican party. Since you obviously believe they have some “real problems”. (By your own words… it would be absurd not to believe that.)
matt
Do you actually read this blog or just post on it?
I can’t even count the number of times John has been called a sycophant of the right and everything in between.
One of the main appeals of this site is its willingness to honestly take on “both sides”. It’s not John’s fault that as of late the right has completely gone off the rails.
Pb
You know, methodological considerations aside, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about a “20 worst” Right and a “20 worst” Left list without really comparing them–but I did one better, I combined them–30 Worst Left and Right (corrections welcome):
Honorable Mentions:
Roger Taney (5L), James Earl Ray (5L), Rush Limbaugh (5L),
Jerry Falwell (5L), Roy Cohn (5L), Dick Cheney (5L), John C. Calhoun (5L),
Ted Bundy (5R), Jane Fonda (5R), John Wayne Gacy (5R),
John Walker Lindh (5R), Michael Moore (5R),
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (6R), John Walker (6R), Robert Byrd (6R),
Pat Robertson (6L), Oliver North (6L), William Randolph Hearst (6L)
30) George Lincoln Rockwell (7L)
30) Robert McNamara (7L)
27) Richard Mellon Scaife (8L)
27) Charles Coughlin (8L)
27) Strom Thurmond (8L)
25) Ronald Reagan (9L)
25) Al Sharpton (9R)
22) Boss Tweed (5L + 5R)
22) George Wallace (10L)
22) Lyndon Johnson (10R)
10) Andrew Jackson (12L)
10) Alger Hiss (12R)
10) Jefferson Davis (13L)
10) George W. Bush (13L)
10) Noam Chomsky (13R)
10) Aldrich Ames (6L + 7R)
10) Charles Manson (9R + 5L)
10) Henry Kissinger (14L)
10) Jesse Jackson (14R)
10) Jimmy Carter (14R)
10) Aaron Burr (6L + 8R)
10) Lee Harvey Oswald (8L + 6R)
8) Nathan Bedford Forrest (16L)
8) J. Edgar Hoover (16L)
7) John Wilkes Booth (14L + 10R)
6) The Clintons — Bill 15R, Hillary 10R (25R)
5) Joseph McCarthy (26L + 5R)
4) Richard Nixon (25L + 8R)
2) Timothy McVeigh (16L + 10R)
2) The Rosenbergs (15R + 3L) & Julius Rosenberg (5R + 3L) (20R + 6L total votes)
1) Benedict Arnold (14L + 19R)
Pb
Hmm, looks like I should have bumped Nixon and McCarthy up. Oh well, you get the idea.
Darrell
The leftists posting on this site are so extreme, that anything less than universal condemnation of all things Republican results in John being called a “sycophant” of the right.. That’s no indication that his views are balanced, it’s a reflection of the extremism of many of the leftists posting on this site..
John S.
Do yourself a favor – don’t waste your time.
Darrell likes pie and that’s about it.
Pb
Combined worst list corrected here; FYI.
matt
That’s absurd. That vast majority of left-leaning people who post here are your run-of-the-mill, political junkie, partisans. There’s nothing extreme about the collective voice of liberals on this blog. Stop it.
John S.
I couldn’t agree more, Darrell.
chriskoz
Yea… I expected Darrell to ignore it. But, at least I had to give him a chance to demonstrate how “balanced” he is.
Andrew
I want to have your abortion, Darrell.
tBone
Have we been reading the same blog? John has been wrestling with this ever since I started reading him in early 2005. Yeah, he’s amped up his criticism of Republicans in the last month or so. There’s an election coming up, see, and John wants the GOP to lose, in the hopes that it will help steer the party back to something he’s comfortable with. But if the Democrats win next week, I don’t think it will take long for John to blow the dust off the “Democratic Stupidity” button.
You’re free to disagree with his change of heart, of course, but I don’t see how anyone can argue with a straight face that this was an “abrupt” change if they’ve really been paying attention.
RSA
Call me a skeptical agnostic, but I really wish that when a politician says, “I trust that God speaks through me,” it would not count as an automatic plus by a large fraction of the public.
DoubtingThomas
This is all Darrell can come up with? The Republicans 15 years ago were MORE in bed with the religous right than today? Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I always though you a serious guy, Darrell, but I see you’re grasping at straws just like the rest of your sorry party.
cleek
according to the R’s, Bill Clinton is worse than John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, McVeigh and Charles Manson ?
that really does speak for itself.
Bender
John: Obviously, Darrell, the Religionists that have taken over the GOP have persecuted Liberals so much with their gay-killing and forced thrice-daily Baby-Jesus-worship and outlawing abortions that the Dems are reasonably backlashing against Republicans of the past like Ronald Reagan. So it’s perfectly understandab — oh, lookie, a KITTY! Heeeeeere, Kitty, Kitty!
ThymeZone
Number One and Two funniest posts I have seen around here in a long time.
Bravo!
Bender
Fixed.
Also, no surprise than the Rosenbergs don’t rate a significant response from the (cough) Party of National Security (cough).
Fledermaus
By the way everyone I need to borrow the brainwashing machine Thursday night – I’m bringing it to a GOP strategy meeting.
Rex
John Hawkins is the very definition of a blowhard. His commenters however are even worse than he is.
I especially like the way Hawkins calls you an ‘ex-conservative’ because, in today’s bizarro world, all Democrats are liberals, all Republicans are conservatives, anyone vocally questioning the Republican party line is an ‘ex-conservative’ and we have always been at war with EastAsia.
Pb
You’re not that far off the mark there, actually–they want assassinations (just ask Pat Robertson, for one), state-endorsed religion, and yes, outlawing abortions…
Darrell
Yeah, kind of like leftists call libertarians like Glenn Reynolds who voted twice for Bill Clinton “right wing”.. lefties saying even worse about Christopher Hitchens
Pb
Actually, the Republican list thought Nixon was worse than Lee Harvey Oswald too. And who is this ‘Bender’ guy, Darrell’s retarded robot brother?
Bruce Moomaw
Of course, every argument these characters make against Cole could be made against those other notorious pinkos and Michael Moore sympathizers such as George Will and Jeffrey Hart. What you’re seeing is simply the fact that — as Walter Cronkite said — “Until I started surfing the Net, I had no idea there were so many idiots in this country.” The Internet gives everybody his very own printing press, and with 300 million potential editorialists it’s hardly surprising that a lot of extremist garbage gets printed (particularly since the people most likely to start their own political blog are precisely the people with the strongest feelings of urgency about their own political views).
The analogy I saw on the Left recently was Kos throwing a hysterical fit about the New Republic after it dared to criticize him, and accusing it of being “right-wing” and “pro-neocon”. To put it mildly, it isn’t right-wing, and a majority of the time it isn’t pro-Neocon.
cleek
Also, no surprise than the Rosenbergs don’t rate a significant response from the (cough) Party of National Security
i’d be surprised if more than 3 people in my office even know who the Rosenbergs are.
cleek
Yeah, kind of like leftists call libertarians like Glenn Reynolds who voted twice for Bill Clinton “right wing”
whatever he was back in 1996, Reynolds is a GOP shill today.
Bruce Moomaw
Note also that what Hawkins objects to is simply the fact that Cole is opposed, not to the Right per se, but to the theocratic Christian movement. Most other non-theocratic conservatives are royally fed up with the current GOP, too. (Thus, for instance, the mindboggling conversion of Jeffrey Hart.) The portion of the American electorate that remains pro-GOP at this point consists almost entirely of (1) Christian theocrats, and (2) businessmen eager to continue making campaign contributions to the incumbent party in return for economic handouts and favors — and the latter, of course, are not going to write much publicly about their deals.
Faux News
Cheer up John. At least Hawkins didn’t accuse you of having unprotected sex with this group! He left you some wiggle room. This could be a left wing Craiglist “cuddle party” which you participated in.
Bruce Moomaw
As for Reynolds, always keep in mind that his idea of “libertarianism” has been to publicly encourage people to censor the NY Times by busting up its vending machines because it dared to criticize Bush’s Iraq policy. One might call him a Kristallnacht Libertarian.
SeesThroughIt
Surely you didn’t forget that Bill got a hummer, did you? And Hillary’s all shrill and probably a lesbian. Therefore…Worst. People. Ever!
Darrell
Fair enough. But there is also a huge segment who are not pro-GOP, but anti-Dem. I think it was Hawkins who posted a few days back something like (paraphrase from memory following) “Have Republicans earned a return to power? No. But neither have Dems, who have put forth zero realistic alternatives, running a campaign 100% all about ‘we’re not Bush'”
Perry Como
Yes. And these are Serious, Sober, Serious people.
Perry Como
That’s because Nixon cost the party political capital.
Bender
Wanting and getting are two different things, though, aren’t they? Anyone with the brainpower usually attributed to a Dixie cup must wonder why this allegedly all-powerful interest group which allegedly has control over the ruling party can’t get any major part of it’s agenda pushed through by the party it allegedly owns. Which was the point that went whoooshing.
RSA
It should be kept in mind that RWNS asked 100 bloggers on each side for a ranking, and fewer than 40 responded from each side. It’s not really reasonable to extrapolate. I’m reminded a bit of concern about skyrocketing CEO salaries, which are generally based on surveys of a few hundred companies in the U.S. (e.g., the S&P 500, or even just the biggest 100 companies). We’re not talking about representative samples.
Pb
RSA,
Well I guess it depends on what your goals are. But actually I think it’d make a lot of sense to track, say, CEO salaries for the 100 biggest companies, and see how they’ve changed over time–I think that data would be way more meaningful than, say, 40 self-selected partisan blogs.
Fledermaus
Don’t forget, they murdered Vince Foster too! Those bastards!
Tsulagi
I noticed he used “conservative” a number of times in his post. Haven’t read Hawkins before so don’t have a real opinion of the guy.
So I won’t say he must be retarded if he thinks this president, administration, and Republican controlled Congress have any resemblance to being conservative. Because to believe that, not only would you have to be retarded, you’d have to constantly be using fun-house mirrors as your eye wear.
RSA
Right, Pb, it does make some sense to track salaries of the CEOs of top companies, for trends and to look at differences from, say, the median wage, but I get the impression that people may think we’re talking about more than 0.0001% of the population when the conversation turns to “CEO salaries”. Not that this is on topic, I suppose, aside from Bush thinking that these guys are his conservative base. I doubt his approval rating will ever drop that low.
NickM
Never posted here before, and I was wondering, what’s with the pie? Context doesn’t provide many clues.
Thanks.
Pb
NickM,
Yeah, it’s a long-running inside gag. Darrell, derailer of threads, likes pie! Or at least, that’s what you say when you can’t get him to shut his pie hole–obviously what he really wants is more pie!
NickM
Pb – thanks – no wonder context didn’t help much!
PeterJ
Interesting point, none of the commenters from the 2003 post is still active on this blog.
Shygetz
Bender is right…we should wait until the Dominionists get everything they want passed into law before we get upset and vote for a different party. It’s not fair to judge a religious/political movement like the Dominionists based solely on the parts of their agenda they have gotten passed so far, or based on what they say they want. We have to wait until they get their whole agenda and a pony, too; only then can we truly say that the Republicans are in bed with the Dominionists.
Perry Como
The funny thing is how much the Serious Right bleats about the Islamocommienazidecepticonfascisthitlers imposing Sharia in the US, while the Dominionists the Serious Right gets in bed with are pretty much the Wahhabist wing of Christianity.
Bender
And we shouldn’t wait for the Baby-Eaters who control the Democratic Party to get baby-eating legalized before we vote for the other party!
Nice logic.
Perry Como
Democrat Party. What’s the point of being a wingnut if you can’t stick to the focus group tested talking points?
Bender
Fucking asshole wingnut. What’s the point of being a moonbat drone if you don’t show that you’re full of hate for anyone who doesn’t think the same way you do?
WWHDD?
Dave_Violence
I’ve been reading Balloon Juice for quite a while – and there’s no way I’m going with the dums, er dams – BUT I wouldn’t say this about John Cole.
If anything, John Cole has given reason after reason why he’s switched teams. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Pooh
I disagree re: Reagan. I disagree with his policies on pretty much anything domestic. But he got the end of the Cold War closer to right than anyone else at the time. (Yes, yes, unintended consequences, but hindsight is always 20-20)
Would he be my pick for the guy in charge? Not hardly, but that doesn’t make him ‘the worst’ by any stretch. I mean, when you have Joe McCarthy and WB Forrest and Curtis LeMay to choose from…
Perry Como
Wingnuts aren’t that bad. I just wish they’d stop sending my grandchildren into debt.
t. jasper parnell
Who told on the babyeatocrats who are currently locked in a secret yet deadly contest with the deaftocrats for the heart and souls of the party of liberal losers?
t. jasper parnell
I’d like to nominate Henry Ford for the top ten. Cars everywhere, Jewbaiting, hatred of workers, deskilling labor, and so on.
demimondian
Hey, look! Bender likes pie!
t. jasper parnell
WWHDD = What Would Howard the Duck Do? Make a bad movie?
Krista
Mostly men, and mostly fugly.
John’s not only caught teh gay, he’s evidently gone blind.
scarshapedstar
Dude, you hopped into bed with Michael Moore. Is that possible? For you to both fit in a bed? I mean, he’s fat!
tBone
Like you’re going to be able to have grandchildren after you’re forcibly gay-married to an illegal immigrant next week when Pelosi takes over? Get real, moonbat.
Carrick
John, I like to read you, but John H has this right—you aren’t a conservative. Then again, neither am I.
Bruce Moomaw
Bender: “Wanting and getting are two different things, though, aren’t they? Anyone with the brainpower usually attributed to a Dixie cup must wonder why this allegedly all-powerful interest group which allegedly has control over the ruling party can’t get any major part of its agenda pushed through by the party it allegedly owns. Which was the point that went whoooshing.”
OK, Bender: can we safely assume that you yourself don’t want the Theocrats’ agenda passed, but neverthless vote for the GOP because you like their other positions and don’t think the Theocrats will EVER be able to get their policies through? But what are the other GOP policies that you approve of? Is the Bush GOP better than the Dems on foreign and military policy and protecting us from terrorism? They have made it excruciatingly clear that they are (at least) as bad. Do they have better economic policies? They’re spending like there was no tomorrow, putting all of it on our collective credit card, transferring money hand over fist from the nonrich to the rich without any evidence that this is stimulating the economy overall, and lying through their teeth about all of it with monotonous regularity. Are they less corrupt right now than the Dems currently are? Please.
If you’re going to vote for a party strongly indebted to theocrats even though you yourself oppose theocracy, you’d better have damn good alternative reasons to vote for that party. And right now there aren’t any.
grandpa john
Having seen pictures of Jane Hamsher,I feel confident that there are many right wing conservatives who are drooling over the thought of jumping into bed with her.
Perry Como
But she’s a liberal. Down there.
tas
Ex-conservative? Heh. And here I thought that the reason you’re jumping ship from the GOP is because you actually are a conservative and the Republican’s really aren’t all that conservative anymore.
Darrell
Judicial appointments are important
Generally speaking, Republicans are the only ones who can use the phrase: terrorist threat, without having to use scare quotation marks.
Agreed. But with all the Dems rhetoric over ‘underfunded programs’, are you seriously going to argue that the Dems would spend less?
How are they “transferring” money from the nonrich to the rich? The rich use fewer taxpayer services and pay more taxes than the non-rich, percentage-wise and in total amount. Some transfer of wealth there, huh? We can certainly see what an ‘objective’ fair minded commenter you are
I’d call it a draw
RonB
I had Jeffy Goldstein accuse me of this once, ‘cept I’m still a nobody. Point is, they can’t seem to concieve that a ‘conservative’ could suddenly turn into a ‘liberal’ and you must be doing it for attention.
Aren’t you glad you get to celebrate the turnover of the House with us moonbats?
Richard 23
So, Double D smokes a lot of crack, eh?
RonB
I couldn’t help leaving some choice words for Mr. Moran on his blog. Did y’all see what he said about John?
Give this fake-ass contrarian some love, people. Do it for the host.
RonB
Dud, you just don’t even know.
RonB
Dude, you just don’t even know.
Pietro
John,
I’ll be the first to admit this is probably only the first or second time I’ve been here. I’m going to have to take others’ word for it that you were once a stalwart conservative… which makes your change, of course, that much more remarkable and baffling.
Even with this limited perspective, I see that you have indeed developed a full-on for the radical left. (Don’t deny it – I caught a Freudian slip or two in your posts). It’s hard to dispute your conversion, because it’s seems you’ve adopted the indicative air of ignorant elitism that surrounds people like Kerry, Kos, et. al., and despite your defensiveness against being attached to such public whipping boys, Hawkins at least doesn’t have to squint through the filter of hatred and disdain I’ve noticed you’ve inherited of late to see what model you’ve emulated.
You accuse conservatives and the religious ‘nutjobs’ or however you choose to typify us of hating gays, blacks, the whole gamut of diversity. Yet even if we were the hating type, the only difference between you and us is your hate has simply shifted to someone else.. and that makes it no better. (I must admit, the left wing crowd does seem a bit more comfortable with bitter, sarcastic invective. It was probably too tempting to pass up).
Now, if what I’ve observed (and what John points out in his comments) is true, and you’re apoplectic about the ‘religious right’ being a large part of the conservative movement, why wait for the tide to turn in America? I hear China’s persecuting Christians regularly and with vigor. Please, consider that instead of changing “freedom of religion” to “freedom from religion”.
W.B. Reeves
So much for the pretense of intelligent debate.
Right, opposing a radical, theocratic trend within Christianity is the same as supporting the Chi Com’s persecution of Christians in general. Brilliant. Of course, it is a characteristic of adherents of this trend that they assert their right to define as Christian only those who agree with their authoritarian brand. Pathetic.
I see poor Darrell has returned to the lists. He seems to be stepping with a good deal more care than usual. So much so that he appears a paragon of reason compared to the two specimens above.
John, I read your earlier post concerning your disillusion with your former allies on the right. I sympathize. I have old friend who is going through a similar epiphany. If you have time for an entertaining Conservative/Libertarian rant against the current GOP, you might pick up a copy of “Post-Nationalism, G.W. Bbush as President of the World” by Brad Linaweaver. It might help to know that there are others with impeccable center-right credentials who share your own dismay and not simply due to career considerations involved in avoiding the looming Conservative train wreck.
My own shift to the left occured decades ago. One of the first things I had to come to terms with is that ideology is no guarantee of character or intellectual integrity. In general, people believe what they want to believe or what they find it convenient to believe. Whether the label is Conservative or Liberal, Right or Left, their primary use for a great many people is simply to validate existing prejudice and psychological need. That’s why you see so-called Conservatives who happily jettison constitutional concerns and “Libertarians” who embrace authoritarianism so long as it serves the interests of “their team.” You’ll find the same sort of thing on the left. Sadly, personal relationships are not exempt from this kind of doublethink.
The only weapons we have as a defense against such mass imbecility are reason, facts and our commitment to them. In less than a week we will see if these have been sufficient.
Pietro
You mean to tell me that Christianity is overly ‘theocratic’? Pardon my confusion, but aren’t the two somehow related in the first place?
No, not the same, but the eventuality of a trend.
And I thought stereotyping and bigotry was the sole domain of us right-wing headcases.
Add to that unabashed arrogance.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.” –John Stuart Mill
W.B. Reeves
It’s humorous that while accusing me of “stereotyping” Pietro confirms the supposed “stereotype” by making it plain that he does indeed arrogate to himself the the right to define Christianity to suit his prejudices. Evidently, he doesn’t consider this arrogance on his part. Next time the Papacy is vacant perhaps Pietro will put in an application for the post.