So are you admitting that attempting to remove guardianship of Michael Schiavo without any evidence that it was legally warrented is hypocritical for a group of people who ordinarily hold marriage up to such a high ideal? That it is hypocritical to think that gays will "weaken" the institution but governmental intervention into a particular marriage will not? Why is the slippery slope ok in one instance but not in the other?

I'm admitting no such thing. I'm merely observing a habit of thought among a certain group of people, without reference to those thoughts' accuracy.

Justin: For too many, liberalism has devolved into an ideology for feeling one's own rightness, as compared to the wrongness of Western (particularly Christian) conservatives.

Justin, I think you are right. "Liberal" is supposed to mean open-minded, seeking reform in the interest of the common good, etc., right? So how did that devolve into the mindset that everything Western, Christian or pro-business is bad? I don't get it.

The short answer is that a set of positions congealed into an identity, and that identity requires others posed in opposition. A further problem is that many of their positions are unworkable, but since they are intrinsic to the identity, there must be a reason (i.e., conservatives) that they aren't working.

I'm admitting no such thing. I'm merely observing a habit of thought among a certain group of people, without reference to those thoughts' accuracy.

So how do you feel about hypocrisy in general? While I don't consider it the greatest sin a conservative can commit, I find it extremely distasteful. My major issue with those in the "save Terri at all costs" camp is their absolutism, or rather their blindness to certain ambiguities.

I find it disturbing that someone like Tom DeLay can say that he doesn't care about Michael's position as a her husband or that it was irrelevent (I can't remember the exact quote). To deny that their position in this matter is inconsistent with their marriage rhetoric is dishonest. I can still respect the view that saving Terri's life can trump the sanctity of marriage, but to address this issue as if those conflicting views aren't problematic or that there isn't any nuance whatsoever, is troubling.

I agree that hypocrisy is distasteful, but I think most of what is attacked as hypocrisy on the political stage isn't.

I guess part of the question is what "marriage rhetoric" you're talking about. I haven't heard any mainstream SSM opponents declare that marriage is absolutely inviolable. It seems to me that those who parrot this particular liberal line are adding their own import for what "sacred institution of marriage" ought to mean for those who believe in it.

As Ms. Ruo illustrates, they do so in order to construct an illusion of hypocrisy that can then be used to hammer an unrelated issue. Michael Schiavo had to have the power over the life and death of Terri Schiavo so that liberals could feel like conservatives had proven that they don't really believe what they say on other matters.

By the flawed thinking, Michael, it sounds as if you, as a proponent of SSM, should have supported the removal of custody from Mr. Schiavo.

"So are you admitting that attempting to remove guardianship of Michael Schiavo without any evidence that it was legally warrented is hypocritical for a group of people who ordinarily hold marriage up to such a high ideal?" I love the commenters here. They are so clever and they come up with some really neat tricks. Too bad so many of them seem to be incapable of comprehending what you actually write, Justin, and seem to be reading something else than what's in front of their (and everybody else's) eyes. In fact, I find this peculiarity to be a recurring phenomenon of your comment boxes. Do you think perhaps one person is using different names but foolishly commiting the same stupid mistake over and over again when replying to you? Could so many people who disagree with you actually misunderstand plain, simple words so readily?

Really, it's just fascinating.

Actually, you're all debating a moot point here. The following is an excerpt from a web site that has a thorough examination of the history of Terri Schiavo's story. I would suggest that anybody who wants to discuss this case read this site to gather more information on which to base their arguments:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

"Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures."

As this examination of the legal record shows (BTW, there are actual court papers written in legalese linked from this site), Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life support, although he did argue in court that that is what she would want.

I think the hypocricy alarm comes from questioning those in power. Conservatives have power in this country, and thus deserve to have their motives questioned. If those in control are trying to foist a specific morals-based orithodoxy on how the government is run, then pointing out inconsistencies is important.

If you say you respect the "culture of lfe" yet support the executiion of prisoners, that's an inconsistency that needs to be explained. If you believe in "small government" yet immerse the federal government into a state matter and the marriage of an individual person, that needs to be explained. If you believe in the "sanctity of marriage' yet are willing to gut those legal rights by inserting federal courts into a marriage, than that inconsistency needs to be explained.

Liberalism can easiily, and rightfully, be faulted for not standing for anything. Conservatism, however, appears to be built on much more consistent values and orthodoxy, so it deserve examination when those values can be so easily tossed aside.

I agree that hypocrisy is distasteful, but I think most of what is attacked as hypocrisy on the political stage isn't.

I agree with you that liberals hurl the claim of hypocrisy around a lot. I think this is a certain case of hypocrisy, but as I emphasized it is justifiable. Only DeLay, et al, aren't attempting to justify a limited hypocrisy or even to acknowledge that we should proceed with caution when talking about invalidating the marriage contract.

It seems to me that those who parrot this particular liberal line are adding their own import for what "sacred institution of marriage" ought to mean for those who believe in it.

Then I'm having a difficult idea figuring out what you're talking about then when you talk about the sacred institution of marriage. Why should we even have it if a husband can't be presumed to know what his wife wanted? This conflict between what one's parents wish and one's spouse wishes is one of the reasons gays want to get married. This isn't quite that issue because what reality based says above is fairly accurate.

Here is what Tom Delay said: "I don't know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive. ... Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don't care what her husband says." Part of the marriage contract is that society is supposed to accept what you say, absent other evidence. There was nothing on record to say that Michael Schiavo shouldn't have been trusted as her husband, and yet Tom DeLay, one of the most powerful Republicans in the government doesn't care about that accepted contract. That is hypocrisy.

By the flawed thinking, Michael, it sounds as if you, as a proponent of SSM, should have supported the removal of custody from Mr. Schiavo.

Why? I like marriage just the way it is. If I didn't I'd be content with civil unions. I want Michael Schiavo to be the spokesperson for his wife. Because otherwise why would we bother fighting for a legal contract that could be violated by the government because the "don't care" what a husband says.

If those in control are trying to foist a specific morals-based orithodoxy on how the government is run, then pointing out inconsistencies is important.

Exactly, Res. And I think these inconsistencies *can* be explained. And they should be explained. But you can't just say "Move along, move along, there's no inconsistency here, just move along...."

Res,

Hypocrisy has been a favorite charge against conservatives in and out of power. It mostly has to do with the storyline that liberals tell themselves — that they're always the rebels against the mindless authority. Blah.

There is only inconsistency if you insist on another liberal foible: absolutism. I believe in a small government, but one that protects the lives of its individual citizens — an application that is quite direct in the Schiavo case. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, but it doesn't trump the sanctity of life, and in this case, pace Michael, we have a common law wife and two children as evidence that "that Michael Schiavo shouldn't have been trusted as her husband."

Justin,
I really wish you would read the site I keep referring to:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

before you continue demonizing Michael Schiavo and the judges involved in this case. It is fairly easy to rebut the arguments put forward by M. Carrie Ruo. This does not mean that there are no convincing arguments from that side. If you can convincingly rebut the arguments put forward at abstract appeal, then you will have accomplished something- and I would be interested to read your rebuttal.

The ruling to remove the feeding tube was based on a finding that this is what Terri would want, if she were able to speak for herself. The other side of this case (that Terri would NOT want the feeding tube removed) was vigorously argued several times in court.

1. Do you believe that people should not be able to specify in living wills that they would want to be removed from life maintaining apparati if they fall in to a persistant vegetative state?

2. Do you believe that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistant vegetative state?

3. Do you believe that it would not have been her wish to be disconnected from life maintaining apparati?

4. Is there another reason for your position that she should not have had her feeding tube removed?

If number 1 is your reason, than that is a matter of personal values that is subject to debate, but not to proof.

If numbers 2 or 3 are your reasons, then I ask what you are basing your beliefs on, and I again encourage you to go to the source, the actual court documents on which the court's findings were based, to be found in links from here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Obviously, I can't say anything about number 4 because I don't know what it would be.

Earlier, you wrote:
"The short answer is that a set of positions congealed into an identity, and that identity requires others posed in opposition. A further problem is that many of their positions are unworkable, but since they are intrinsic to the identity, there must be a reason (i.e., conservatives) that they aren't working."

Are conservatives never guilty of this, as well? (obviously substituting the word "liberals" where your quote says "conservatives")

PS. Condolences on the passing of the Pope. I'm hesitant to write that because you may look for hidden meanings, but I assure you that there are none.

Conservatives can claim to value life in the abstract or in the case of one particular woman, but not necessarily in general. Most religious conservatives oppose Medicare and Medicaid. Without those two programs in most instances there wouldn't be the funds the insert feeding tubes in the first place. For many conservatives, if market forces result in death, regardless of a desire for life, that is morally acceptable. However, if money is available, then someone should be kept alive, maybe even against their wishes.

Actually Justin, I think that bigotry, another thing liberals brand conservatives with, is rated as high as hypocrisy.

I haven't ventured an opinion on the Schiavo case. I know I would not want to be kept alive in her condition. But I also know that is a very, very insufficient basis on which to decide this.

But as for the charge that those who oppose SSM are being hypocritical in siding with Terri's parents rather than with her husband, not only do I not see the hypocrisy, but I actually find it in at least one respect wholly consistent with their view of marriage, and similarly consistent for SSM advocates to side with the husband over the parents. (Though not everybody lined up this way, of course).

SSM opponents believe that marriage is about not just the relationship between the two in the marriage, but about procreation, and hence thus also about the bond between parent and child. SSM supporters argue, however, that procreation is irrelevant to marriage, and that the bond between the two individuals in the marriage is all that is important.

On this basis, where is the inconsistency in SSM opponents believing that Terri's parents had at least as much right to decide whether she live or die as did her husband, as they believe that the parent-child bond is linked to marriage and thus just as essential to marriage as the husband-wife bond is, if not even more so? There is no inconsistency.

And it is also no inconsistency that those who believe that marriage is not primarily about childrearing should thus also believe that the husband's right totally trumps the parents, even though a bond between parent and child is lifelong, while a bond between husband and wife is only as lasting as the marriage is.

So, because the Schiavo's never had a child, there marriage is of less value than if they had a chilld. Interesting. Maybe we should take this further and just invalidate all marriages where no child is created and deny marriage certificates to the infertile.

"So, because the Schiavo's never had a child, there marriage is of less value than if they had a child".

Yawn.

Good tactic, Res. When one straw man argument fails, just rehash another one.

Needless to say, the parent-child bond is not a part of every marriage, but that doesn't make it any less important of a bond. And it certainly doesn't tell us anything as to why a husband should have priority over parents in deciding whether a person should live or die. Now, go ahead and jump to the legal argument. I know, the law grants that right to the husband, but the mere fact that not all marriages produce children tells us nothing about why this should be.

Or is your argument that:

1) not all marriages produce children;

2) therefore, marriage has nothing to do with procreation;

3) spousal bond is the only meaningful bond in marriage;

4) therefore, husband's right to decide whether or not to end wife's life totally trumps parents'.

If that is your reasoning (and I'm sure you'll say that I'm erecting a straw man), I may disagree, but such reasoning is no more inconsistent than that of SSM opponents who disagree with point 2 and thus come to different conclusions on points 3 and 4 as well.

Now, if you criticized those who supported the parents on the grounds that otherwise they always insist on following the letter of the law even when the law goes against one's moral principles (if that had been the case), then the claim of hypocrisy and inconsistency would be stronger.

But the charge of hypocrisy as stated by you and M. Carrie Ruo falls apart upon further analysis.

The Schiavo case illustrates that the old definitions of Conservative and Liberal no longer apply.

Traditionally, Conservatives favored a small governent that stays out of people's personal affairs, while liberals are more willing to legislate private behavior to acheive sociatal goals (you want to hire only white Christian heterosexuals for your business? You can't. Want to drain some wetlands you own to build a vacation home? Sorry!)

But in this case, it's the Conservatives that are sticking their noses and second-guessing provate decisions, while liberals say "hands off!"

Private decisions? Government recogniton of marriage is not private. When Michael Schiavo asked the court to decided what to do with Terri's life, he did not seek a private decision.

On what basis do you disregard his second marriage? Bigamy (and polygamy) cases often depend on establishing the public recognition of a concurrent second marriage. Public, again.

If Michael Schiavo had been the perfect husband, are you saying Conservatives wouldn't have called a special session of Congress to thwart the constitution and the judiciary?

If Michael Schiavo had been the perfect husband, he would not have been having children with a second woman while his wife was still alive now would he Res Ipsa? Neither would he have been trying to argue that it was her wish to die. He would not have withheld physical therapy that might have given her a chance to eat on her own, and furthermore would not have requested that the possibly fatal urinary tract infection not be treated.

In short Res Ipsa, if he had even been a model husband, this case would not even have been in the court!

Once Michael accepted that Terri's condition was beyond recovery, it was decision to carry out what he felt were Terri's wishes.

Regsrding Michael's other relationship, it is reasonable to interpret it as follows (This is my interpretation, since I don't personally know Michael so I can't definitively describe his thinking):

It is reasonable for a man to want a relationship a family. Terri was no longer able to act as a relationship parter or parent. It is interesting the at one time the Schindler's encouraged Michael to stert a relationship with another woman.

At the same time, when one marries, one vows to care for one's spouse "in sickness and in health." Michael may have felt a responsibility as her husband to care for her until the end in accordance to her wishes. Could have have divorced and turned that responsibility over to the Schindler's? Absolutely! But that is a personal decision that doesn't need to be second-guessed by people who have never met the parties involved.

Res Ipsa, you emphasized privacy.

Now you turn to some standard that at once includes the public practice of bigamy, denial of nourishment, a court order, and the notion of perfection.

With each comment you communicate that you do not understand where you stand.

Perfection is the confusion. If Michael was a "perfect" husband who wanted to respect his wife's wishes and not keep her in a PVS, would conservatives have gone this far to try to prevent Terri's wishes from being respected?

Michael as bad husband is a red herring. Right-to-Life zealots and opportunists like Tom DeLay would have made this a federal issue regardless.

I see two rhetorical devices at play among our liberal commenters:

“Person X believes Y. X is a bad person. Therefore Y is false.” This is the heart of the hypocrisy charge. It derails the conversation by luring the target into defending his own character rather than discussing the real issue. The best response is to ignore the emotional bait and deny the argument on its structure alone: Bad people can still hold true beliefs.

“General belief A leads to specific belief B. And B is ridiculous, or those who believe A don’t also believe B. Therefore either general belief A is also ridiculous, or those holding it are hypocrites, or bad people.”

The trick here is that the connection between a general belief and specific beliefs is often quite complicated. The person making the argument doesn’t hold the general belief, so he isn’t qualified to connect it to the specific belief.

This thread gives us several examples:

Res Ipsa: “If you say you respect the "culture of lfe" yet support the executiion of prisoners, that's an inconsistency that needs to be explained.”

Joel: “Conservatives can claim to value life in the abstract or in the case of one particular woman, but not necessarily in general. Most religious conservatives oppose Medicare and Medicaid.”

Res Ipsa: “If you believe in "small government" yet immerse the federal government into a state matter and the marriage of an individual person, that needs to be explained.”

Dancar: “Traditionally, Conservatives favored a small governent that stays out of people's personal affairs . . . But in [the Schiavo] case, it's the Conservatives that are sticking their noses and second-guessing provate decisions.”

If you don’t agree with or understand a general viewpoint, then you don’t have any business telling those who agree with it what specific positions that general viewpoint entails. We will choose our own beliefs. You insist on reducing our beliefs to a stereotype or cartoon, then knocking it down. All you demonstrate by this maneuver is how little you understand what you’re arguing against.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives today is that conservatives are very familiar with liberal thoughts and arguments, while liberals know nearly nothing about conservatism. This puts liberals at a perpetual disadvantage, because they don’t understand us well enough to articulate the positions that they set out to disprove. It’s apparently beneath the dignity of liberals to find out what “culture of life” means, and how it might apply to the death penalty. Liberals apparently consider themselves to be so intelligent that they can hear the phrase “sanctity of marriage,” and from that conclude that we must want husbands to completely dominate their wives, even to the point of deciding whether they should live or die.

Liberalism is becoming brittle. It requires that its adherents not expose themselves to competing ideologies. To a typical liberal, conservatism is not an alternate viewpoint to be considered and rejected, and conservatives are not fair-minded people who hold positions that are reasonable though incorrect. Instead, conservatism is blatant nonsense, and those who claim to believe it are either liars or idiots.

Most conservatives don’t view liberals or liberalism that way. I think that liberals are misinformed. They haven’t thought through all the arguments and considerations. I think that most of them are basically reasonable people who will eventually remove their emotional blinders and come to understand, if not agree with, the concerns that animate conservatives. And I certainly don’t claim to be able to read their minds. I don’t know what position they’ll take on any given issue, so I’m certainly never going to argue along the lines of: “You’re a liberal. Therefore you must hold ridiculous position X. Therefore you’re stupid and/or wrong.”

Please don’t waste your time and ours telling us that the Republican leaders are wrong because they’re bad people. And don’t bother telling us about the ridiculous positions that you believe we must adhere to. You can’t read our minds. You aren’t psychics. You’re arguing from ignorance. Educate yourselves.

I see two rhetorical devices at play among our liberal commenters:

“Person X believes Y. X is a bad person. Therefore Y is false.” This is the heart of the hypocrisy charge. It derails the conversation by luring the target into defending his own character rather than discussing the real issue. The best response is to ignore the emotional bait and deny the argument on its structure alone: Bad people can still hold true beliefs.

Actually this is the tactic of Conservatives who insist that Michael Schiavo had no right to act on behalf of Terri because of Michael's relationship and children with another woman.

Ben:

My comment you quoted about Conservatives verses Liberals illustratrates the transformation of the Republican Party over the past few decades. Goldwater Republicans don't like government regulation of people's private affairs. But that has gone largely out the window as the party reached out to religious conservatives, who have little problem with governent telling people how to live, as long as it is how they want people to live. This is what the so-called "culture war" is about.

Ben: [the hypocrisy charge] derails the conversation by luring the target into defending his own character rather than discussing the real issue.

Agreed.

Ben: ...the connection between a general belief and specific beliefs is often quite complicated. The person making the argument doesn’t hold the general belief, so he isn’t qualified to connect it to the specific belief.

Wait a minute ... didn't you just say the character of people making an argument is irrelevant to the validity of that argument? One can accurately say "A implies B" while holding the opinion that A is probably false.

Dancar: The charge related to Michael Schiavo's character was relevant to his veracity in relating Terri's supposed wish to die. It was a personal conflict of interest, very different from the outlined argument.

It fits my silly-rhetoric model perfectly when you claim that the regulation of private affairs is somehow relevant to the Schiavo case. Conservatives mean something specific by "regulation of private affairs," something that you either don't understand or want to ignore. The phrase refers either to lifestyle choices or to opposition to governmental micromanagement of business by regulation. Neither of those has anything to do with Terri. As Reality Based points out, the government decided to pull the tube, not her husband.

Matt: "One can accurately say "A implies B" while holding the opinion that A is probably false."

Yes, of course. But only if you really understand A. And you're far less likely to understand A if you disagree with it. Even more so if you haven't studied it.

Suppose that I want to argue against Unitarianism, based on how silly I think their beliefs are. It would be difficult, because I don't know what Unitarians believe. If I were a Unitarian, I would probably have a much better idea of what they believe. Or I might not be a Unitarian, but I might have studied their beliefs in some detail. But neither applies to me. I have only a vague stereotype about Unitarians, roughly that they're a church for people who don't believe in God.

Given this, I will not try to tell them how stupid and self-contradictory their religion is---because I don't know anything about it! I will not tell them: "You believe X, which must mean Y, which is ridiculous, and therefore you're all wrong and stupid."

Maybe they do believe those things, and maybe they are wrong. But until I actually know something about the beliefs I'm criticizing, I should keep my shut my mouth, open my ears, and consider that maybe their beliefs are more sophisticated than I know.

Dancar writes:

Actually this is the tactic of Conservatives who insist that Michael Schiavo had no right to act on behalf of Terri because of Michael's relationship and children with another woman.

As Ben has suggested, you're not bothering to understand what conservatives are actually arguing. Michael's extramarital relationship didn't instantly forfeit his "right to act on behalf of Terri." The point is that the comments supporting the conclusion that Terri would have wanted to die come via Michael's word (and that of his brother and sister). That he hasn't just "moved on with his life," but has moved on with it so much as to replace Terri with another woman — indeed, building more of a family with that other woman than he has with his wife — raises severe questions about the credibility of his testimony regarding his wife's wishes.

Ben: Yes, of course [it's possible to draw conclusions from a premise you don't believe]. But only if you really understand A. And you're far less likely to understand A if you disagree with it. Even more so if you haven't studied it.

Then would you agree that the solution is to explain A, so that it is clearly understood? Or perhaps refer the misguided arguer to appropriate sources of study. Perhaps with better understanding the other guy might find he agrees with you more than he thought.

Re: Unitarianism, you nailed it, at least the dynamics of the Unitarian church as a social institution:

I have only a vague stereotype about Unitarians, roughly that they're a church for people who don't believe in God.

Of course, every once in a while a Unitarian minister gives a sermon regarding the possibility that (gasp!) some form of God might exist. This is just fine according to official Unitarian doctrine, but ruffles feathers among the mostly atheist congregation -- it can be amusing to watch.

Then would you agree that the solution is to explain A, so that it is clearly understood? Or perhaps refer the misguided arguer to appropriate sources of study. Perhaps with better understanding the other guy might find he agrees with you more than he thought.

It depends on how easy it is to explain: nobody is going to explain 50 years of modern conservative thinking, or thousands of years of various lines of religious doctrines, in the comment section of a blog. Besides, there's always somebody new coming along thinking they're offering oh so sophisticated refutations of conservative positions (happens all the time on Dust in the Light). Nobody has time to restate all the arguments (say, regarding SSM) multiple times. That's why Ben's pointing out it is the interlocuter's responsibility to educate himself about his opponents beliefs, not the opponent's responsibility to automatically start out on the defensive, as if his beliefs must be justified, but the liberal's beliefs don't need to be.

Mike: nobody is going to explain 50 years of modern conservative thinking, or thousands of years of various lines of religious doctrines, in the comment section of a blog.

No, that wouldn't be practical. Besides, after a lifetime studying all those conservative (or liberal) thinkers and theologians, we might realize that there are a zillion different, incompatible visions of conservatism and liberalism. Think how confusing that would be.

Mike: Ben's pointing out it is the interlocuter's responsibility to educate himself about his opponents beliefs, not the opponent's responsibility to automatically start out on the defensive.

Yes, you are right, provided it is clear what the opponent believes. Otherwise, how would you know what it is you're supposed to be studying?

Ben:
I found your previous post (April 4, 3:26 pm) very interesting.

Namely because I could imagine myself making a very similar argument, except switching the roles that you assign to liberal and conservative.

This, for example:
"If you don’t agree with or understand a general viewpoint, then you don’t have any business telling those who agree with it what specific positions that general viewpoint entails. We will choose our own beliefs. You insist on reducing our beliefs to a stereotype or cartoon, then knocking it down. All you demonstrate by this maneuver is how little you understand what you’re arguing against."

I made a point a few days ago in another thread about applying the term “anti-American”, or “blame America first” to people who disagree with President Bush’s various responses to Sept. 11. It is my opinion that most of his responses have increased the likelihood of future terrorism directed against us, in addition to being morally wrong. This does not mean I hate America, that I hate freedom, or any of the other catch phrases that many conservatives often apply to people who express views similar to mine. What many conservatives call “blaming America first” is my (and others’) position that we are responsible for our own actions, and that regardless of how evil or immoral others may be, we are responsible to do the right thing ourselves. I've also heard it said that my opposition to starting a war in which over a hundred thousand have already been killed equals support for Saddam Hussein. I do not, nor have I ever supported Saddam Hussein. Members of our current administration cannot make the same claim.

I can agree with you that liberals do this to conservatives; can you not see that conservatives also do this to liberals?

“The main difference between liberals and conservatives today is that conservatives are very familiar with liberal thoughts and arguments, while liberals know nearly nothing about conservatism.”

I heartily disagree. There most certainly are ignorant liberals – but there are also ignorant conservatives. I’m not going to take the time right now to find empirical data about that, but you haven’t presented any either. Just look at this blog here, for anecdotal evidence: some liberal positions are very weakly or illogically argued, but so are many conservative positions.

“This puts liberals at a perpetual disadvantage, because they don’t understand us well enough to articulate the positions that they set out to disprove. It’s apparently beneath the dignity of liberals to find out what “culture of life” means, and how it might apply to the death penalty.”

I personally understand conservatives quite well; I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, for 18 years I went to church 3 times a week, I received a nomination from my Senator to attend West Point – I had been gung ho to be a career military officer since I was 8 years old, the first vote I ever cast for president was for Ronald Reagan. I have always enjoyed debating politics – the first time I actually listened to the liberal argument, open to the possibility that they might have valid reasons for their beliefs and the possibility that I might be wrong, I began to be convinced that we were not as perfect as I had always been taught. I began applying the personal moral standards that I had been taught to our collective actions as a nation, following Jesus’ instructions to pick the log out of my own eye before criticizing my neighbor for the speck in his eye. I have no idea how well you understand liberals’ (or progressives’- your view of Unitarianism as a luke-warm "religion" is similar to my view of liberals as luke-warm "progressives") positions, but I doubt that you understand them better than I understand conservatives’ positions. I have read some of Ann Coultier’s, Bernard Goldstein’s, and Rush Limbaugh’s books; have you read any Chomsky? (and BTW, can you recommend any right-wing author who is more articulate and logical than these 3 – I truly attempt to be aware of the positions of those with whom I disagree (I'm here, aren't I ?), and there must be some author from the right who can present a more reasonable argument than these 3.)

As for it being beneath my dignity to find out what “culture of life” means, its not a phrase that is defined by Webster. It is, at least to some extent, open to personal interpretation. Several times on this blog (not necessarily on this thread), I have asked people who generally represent conservative positions to explain what they mean when they use that phrase (to little avail), and I have offered my interpretation of what I believe would be involved in a culture of life. I doubt that there is a universally accepted authority to define the phrase, so I will ask you, and anyone else, to define what you mean when you use it.

“Liberalism is becoming brittle. It requires that its adherents not expose themselves to competing ideologies. To a typical liberal, conservatism is not an alternate viewpoint to be considered and rejected, and conservatives are not fair-minded people who hold positions that are reasonable though incorrect. Instead, conservatism is blatant nonsense, and those who claim to believe it are either liars or idiots.”

Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh or read the “Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler”? We on the left are plenty vilified as well. Does the "typical conservative" agree with Rush and Ann's opinion of us progressives (or liberals)? To my knowledge, you (from the right) have not personally been guilty of this, and I (from the left) have done my best not to stoop to that level. I’m just saying that the brush you are painting the left with applies equally to the right. It is also true that many from each side do not stoop to those levels. How much have you exposed yourself to competing ideologies? – If you’re truly interested in it, I can suggest some excellent books and web sites.

“And I certainly don’t claim to be able to read their minds. I don’t know what position they’ll take on any given issue, so I’m certainly never going to argue along the lines of: “You’re a liberal. Therefore you must hold ridiculous position X. Therefore you’re stupid and/or wrong.” “

I commend you for this. I try to follow the same standard. But there are both liberals and conservatives who do not.

“You’re arguing from ignorance. Educate yourselves.”

Name some authors and books. I’ll suggest some to you, if you’re interested.

Few can articulate and clearly express their moral principles. It takes a lot of time and work. No one can develop a moral view on every specific question that arises.

That's what makes it so easy to object to others assigning me a view based on their assumptions about my moral outlook. Much of the time, I may not know what my own view is! So how can someone else tell me what my view is, and that it's wrong?

The Schiavo case is a great example of this. In thinking about end-of-life decisions, there are lots of fine distinctions to be made, and lots of hard questions to be asked. I followed the news on Terri with some interest, and I even prepare living wills professional, but I don't claim to know all that much about it.

I don't know how accurate doctors' judgments are about predicting that someone will die, or that they won't wake up. I don't know how much pain people in those situations experience. I don't know what the chances are for some new miracle cure to come along in a few years. I don't know whether extended care would bankrupt my family, or if the government would pay for it, nor am I certain about the moral implications of private versus public funding.

And I don't know much about the mechanics of keeping unconscious people alive. There are all sorts of treatments, from feeding tubes and oxygen to dialysis and---I guess---machines that keep your heart and lungs moving. I don't know how much they cost, how invasive they are, or how painful they are.

As a conservative, I'm full of doubt, and I avoid making sweeping moral generalizations. With Terri, the conservatives wanted to focus on the specifics, while the liberals wanted to make sweeping statements that were broad and often inaccurate. Many people heard the phrase "life support" and imagined that she was hooked up to some gigantic iron lung machine out of the 1950s, something like this:
http://www.members.aol.com/jdjandsje3/brook/iron_lung_1.jp

The attack on DeLay fit this pattern. The liberal press wanted to smear together DeLay's father's case with Terri's, when anyone versed in the details could see that they were quite different.

It seems very psychologically important to liberals to think that they understand conservatives. Several times I've seen liberals losing an argument revert to: "Why don't you stop pretending and just admit that you really just (hate gays, hate blacks, want to impose theocracy, want to destroy civil rights, etc.) Once someone even accused me of being a secret Catholic, which I cleverly concealed by refusing to base my arguments on religion.

Liberals think they understand conservatives, but I have no idea what goes on in the mind of a liberal.

reality based said, "I personally understand conservatives quite well...", then revealed the limits of his understanding with this:

I have read some of Ann Coultier’s, Bernard Goldstein’s, and Rush Limbaugh’s books; have you read any Chomsky? (and BTW, can you recommend any right-wing author who is more articulate and logical than these 3 – I truly attempt to be aware of the positions of those with whom I disagree (I'm here, aren't I ?), and there must be some author from the right who can present a more reasonable argument than these 3.)

Like I said before, if you think conservative thought can be understood or encapsulated with the latest soundbite from Limbaugh or polemic from Coulter, you don't understand conservative thought. Try reading Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Pope John Paul II, Robert George's "Clash of Orthodoxies". Reading National Review, the Weekly Standard, or the columns on Townhall.com on a regular basis would also be useful.

As a general piece of advice (Ben alluded to this, too), liberals need to take conservative arguments at face value in order to understand the argument. That is, you don't have to accept the argument, and you can certainly point out hypocrisies or alternative motivations than those stated if you have evidence to back up the assertion. But you cannot start from the assumption that whatever the conservatives say is a cover for their real motivations. Liberals automatically make this assumption - to wit, that Congressional Republicans didn't really care about Terri Schiavo's life, they were just out for political gain.

Here's a column from Dennis Prager (one of a series) outlining the differences between secular liberal values and Judeo-Christian, conservative ones. I'm curious what the liberals here have to say about this column. I'd predict that they would claim that the views Prager attributes to liberals are a caricature, or only representative of a fringe. I'm curious what they'd say about his representation of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I think Prager is generally correct in representing the two dominant political poles in contemporary America -- the Secular-Socialist Left and the Judeo-Christian Right, as it were.

He is a bit off the mark in believing that the Left only seeks chaos in society. Rather they seek to impose their own order, which is contrary to Prager's notion of the Judeo-Christian order.

While much of Prager's analysis is correct, it is parochial, both historically and geographically. The Leftist paradigm did not exist in past eras of American history, and the Judeo-Christian coalition of our time was once fractured into vehemently opposing factions. An 18th century American would likely be shocked to find the "Judeo-" prefix attached to "Christian", for example.

Likewise, we can expect entirely new fault lines to form in future American politics, eventually superseding the "culture war" divide. Take Virginia Postrel's "stasist/dynamist" dichotomy, for example, or the "radical center" suggested as the core of Ross Perot's support.

Prager's political dichotomy also fades in importance as we move beyond the borders of the United States. In Turkey, the conflict is between Islamist and pro-Western factions; in Iraq, it is between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, and the list goes on ...

My overall opinion of Prager's essay: correct in some obvious ways, but artificially restricted in scope and so laden with partisan invective as to almost completely obscure his argument.

This is a favorite diversion among conservative intellectuals: our ideasl are complex and philosophical while liberalism is simplistic and ungrounded. You see this argument in the National Review often.

The reality is you don't need to read Hayek or Kirk to undestand the basics of conservatism, and I can bet that 75% of conservatives in Congress couldn't even tell you who Hayek is. Just because Buckley can talk about him and the folks at NRO can pontificate about the philosophical groundings of conservatism doesn't mean that a Machiavellian pest-controller turned majority leader grounds his positions in classical conservatism.

Politicians spend little time reflecting on the historical roots of their political ideologies. They care about getting reelected, appeasing constitutencies and interest groups, and getting their name in the paper. Their marching orders aren't based in Hayek and Kirk, or even the Pope, but instead they are based on the mechinations of Karl Rove, well-placed Christian Conservatives, and the RNC.

res,

The reality is you don't need to read Hayek or Kirk to undestand the basics of conservatism, and I can bet that 75% of conservatives in Congress couldn't even tell you who Hayek is. Just because Buckley can talk about him and the folks at NRO can pontificate about the philosophical groundings of conservatism doesn't mean that a Machiavellian pest-controller turned majority leader grounds his positions in classical conservatism.

Politicians spend little time reflecting on the historical roots of their political ideologies. They care about getting reelected, appeasing constitutencies and interest groups, and getting their name in the paper. Their marching orders aren't based in Hayek and Kirk, or even the Pope, but instead they are based on the mechinations of Karl Rove, well-placed Christian Conservatives, and the RNC.

First, kudos for mentioning the all-powerful one, Rove. No political discussion between right and left is complete without him. Second, while it is true that conservatism is distinct from the Republican party (or any particular political party), that doesn't mean the two are completely unrelated. When the Republican party, or individual Republican politicians, do things that are contrary to conservative principles (however those are defined), principled conservatives get upset and act accordingly. For example, when Bush 41 raised taxes, many conservatives voted for Perot as a result. The point is, generally speaking, that DeLay is not the leader of "the conservative movement", he's a product of it.

Matt,

He is a bit off the mark in believing that the Left only seeks chaos in society. Rather they seek to impose their own order, which is contrary to Prager's notion of the Judeo-Christian order.

It depends partly on who you are talking about (i.e. not all liberals/leftists have the same goals or ideology), but I think Prager's point is more that the left's ideologies tend to lead to chaos, rather than that that is their ultimate end (though chaos is an end for some leftists, perhaps as a pathway to a new ordering of society). But it is true that that is Prager's opinion, not an established fact.

While much of Prager's analysis is correct, it is parochial, both historically and geographically.

It's an 800 word op-ed, not a treatise. (He's written several books that go into his thought in more detail.) He's specifically talking about modern, Western societies.

By the standards Prager uses, the right could easily be defined by the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and the Christian Identity Movement.

Ben says he has no idea what goes on in the mind of a liberal. Well, of course, I have no doubt that Ben hasn't a clue of what the liberal Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for.

I'm sure that I was one of the last people Mike S. wanted to respond so, of course, here I am. Basically the following two comments stole my thunder.

"My overall opinion of Prager's essay: correct in some obvious ways, but artificially restricted in scope and so laden with partisan invective as to almost completely obscure his argument."

"This is a favorite diversion among conservative intellectuals: our ideasl are complex and philosophical while liberalism is simplistic and ungrounded."

Yet I'll say that the latter comment also works when substituting the word "liberal" for "conservative" and "conservatism" for "liberalism". Both sides commonly use that diversion.

The question for me while reading Prager's article was "what is his point ?". To state that secular socialists are against Judeo-Christian principles is not exactly newsworthy. To me, his article was just a mirror image of other articles by some leftists against the pursuit towards theocracy by the GWB, Rove, Republican party, etc, etc.

Is Prager saying that rejection of Judeo-Christian principles has consequences ? OK, I agree with that. So what is his alternative ? Theocracy ? If he argued that the pendulum has swung too far towards absolute secularism and the rejection of all religious practice such as public prayer, then I could agree with that too. But he seems to say that Judeo-Christian principles are good and anything else is bad (or evil, as he liked to use).

To me, this puts him in the same class as those leftists who arrogantly proclaim their superiority based on their principles.

My way is good, your way is bad. End of discussion. Just more deja vu.

Mike S.: "Prager's point is more that the left's ideologies tend to lead to chaos, rather than that that is their ultimate end"

That's an important point. Most complaints about liberalism are not about what liberals consciously believe, but about the consequences of what they believe. Liberals are full of good intentions; they just don't like to examine the consequences of their actions. Liberals' view of conservatives seems to be the opposite: In their minds, we're a bunch of evil, scheming, troglodyte theocrats, but the consequences of our actions tend to turn out pretty well.

The recent Iraq war is a good example. The liberals didn't like Saddam, but they hated US military force. They insisted at every turn that Bush was an evil man doing everything wrong, and that the UN should have handled everything. Now the Iraqis have a democratic government and aren't being dropped into shredders, while we learn about a sickening assortment of UN scandals over money and sex. The conservatives have freed millions of people from oppression, while the liberals would have kept the Iraqi rape rooms running as the UN would have debated endlessly. Yet somehow the liberals still believe that they are the bringers of truth, light, and freedom, while the conservatives are slavering half-wits who, if not restrained by the courts, will bring about an age of ignorance, superstition, and theocracy.

Res Ipsa: "This is a favorite diversion among conservative intellectuals: our ideasl are complex and philosophical while liberalism is simplistic and ungrounded."

No, I wouldn't say that conservatism is inherently more complicated than liberalism. The distinction is in how much each side knows about the other. Liberalism can be quite complicated, but we're all familiar with it because we're surrounded by it. We grew up with it. We had to hear about it in college all the time. Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV is you want to hear some liberalism. If you want to understand conservatism, you have to go find it.

Reality Based: It seems to be an article of liberal faith that any criticism of one person can be turned into a criticism of anyone else. I don’t agree with that. There are real differences between conservatives and liberals. I state that as an attempt to find truth, not as an attempt to help my side win in some pointless political tug-of-war.

Reality Based: “What many conservatives call “blaming America first” is my (and others’) position that we are responsible for our own actions, and that regardless of how evil or immoral others may be, we are responsible to do the right thing ourselves.”

Blaming America first is a description of behavior, not belief. It is the simple observation that, for a certain group of people, anything that can possibly be blamed on the United States will be blamed on it, and all other considerations will essentially be ignored. You can conduct whatever complex thoughts you like within your own mind, but the practical result will be to blame America at every opportunity. It isn’t an attempt at reading minds; it’s a description of behavior.

For example, you apparently blame the United States for the suffering of the Iraqis. You don’t seem to blame Saddam, or the United Nations, or any other country that could have stepped in at some earlier time and closed the rape rooms earlier. Somehow, it’s all our fault. Doesn’t “blame America first” accurately describe that? You are blaming America. First. You aren’t blaming anyone else, are you? No doubt you feel that you’re justified in blaming America first, but that doesn’t make the description of your behavior inaccurate.

Reality Based: “I've also heard it said that my opposition to starting a war in which over a hundred thousand have already been killed equals support for Saddam Hussein. I do not, nor have I ever supported Saddam Hussein.”

Here again we must distinguish between thoughts and behavior. You may not have intended to help Saddam by protesting the war. For argument, I’ll assume that your motives were as pure as the driven snow. But to a conservative, that’s largely irrelevant. To a conservative, the question is: What effect did your behavior have in the real world? Is it really so hard to imagine that Saddam took comfort and encouragement in watching you and those like you protesting, even though you didn’t intend to encourage him? Is it so difficult to imagine that some of our soldiers might be alive today had some Iraqi general not been encouraged to fight on by news stories suggesting that America might lose heart and withdraw at any moment?

Reality Based: [On conservatives knowing more about liberals than liberals know about conservatives] “I heartily disagree. There most certainly are ignorant liberals – but there are also ignorant conservatives. I’m not going to take the time right now to find empirical data about that, but you haven’t presented any either.”

Again, you’re trying to force the situation into an ideological mold the insists that both sides must be equal in every way. From everything that I’ve seen, conservatives do not make many broad claims about what specific liberals think. We make claims about what they do, and the consequences of what they do.

Granted, we don’t always state that distinction clearly. Verbal economy leads us to say, “Those who support X want to bring about Y,” when we should say, “X will cause Y, though those who support X may not realize it.”

Reality Based: “I personally understand conservatives quite well; I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, for 18 years I went to church 3 times a week, I received a nomination from my Senator to attend West Point . . . “

An interesting story. What changed your mind? It’s a cliché that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. So what happens to a conservative to turn him into a liberal?

You’ve shared some about your background, so I’ll respond in kind: I went to college in the heyday of political correctness, when you could lose a letter grade on your English paper if you didn’t put “s/he” or “his/her” for every pronoun. I remember liberal tolerance. It meant that I had to tolerate the most outrageous liberalism, but no liberal ever had to tolerate my conservatism. I remember feminist procedures for investigating date rape accusations that put the Star Chamber to shame. I remember reading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then realizing just how much my test scores were penalized because my skin was the wrong color. I remember giving up a long-held dream of an academic career---because my views on politics were not acceptable.

I’m not interested in what liberals think. I’m interested in what they do. And I know what they do, because I’ve watched it, firsthand, for eight years of higher education. I’ve even watched what liberals do to their own members who try to dissent. Ask Larry Summers how much liberals believe in tolerance and diversity. Ask Bernie Goldberg. Ask David Horowitz. Ask those who start as liberals, and then dare to think differently.

You want a book recommendation? Try the Black Book of Communism. Take a long, hard look at the trail of corpses your predecessors have left behind in their quest for egalitarian Utopia. Communism, like liberalism, was a very pretty idea. But count the dead bodies.

Joel: “I have no doubt that Ben hasn't a clue of what the liberal Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for.”

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You are completely comfortable making wild assertions about what I know or don’t know---on the basis of nothing at all!

And you might want to be careful about calling MLK a liberal. He may have been a liberal in the lexicon of his own time, but today his views are typical conservatism: “ I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Mark: Prager was trying to make an intellectual point, and you’re trying to find in it some declaration of superiority. You’re turning questions of truth into questions of motive.

His point is simply that modern liberalism is about blurring distinctions. That hardly seems debatable as a factual matter. For example, he points out that the Left wants to blur the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Do you really dispute that? Isn’t that precisely what the SSM debate is all about? It’s fine to argue that we ought to eliminate the distinction. But can’t we at least observe that a distinction is being eliminated? Does every observation of a truth have to end with “. . . and so I win.”? Can’t we just discuss truth for its own sake?

Ben: It’s a cliché that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

"a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested".

I don't believe it, but that's the other half of the cliché.

Justin, your posts do provide the impetus for some of the most interesting and digestable discussions in the blogsphere.

It's comments like the last half dozen or so that keep me coming back to read (and reread) the discussion threads here.

Thanks, all.

Mike: [Dennis Prager has] written several books that go into his thought in more detail.

In your opinion, is "Think a Second Time" a good choice for a broad picture of Prager's views?

Ben,

Martin Luther King, Jr. not only supported affirmative action, he supported outright quotas. Anyway, you're the one that made a blanket statement about liberals that amounted to nothing more than a wild assertion. You're condemning liberals for traits that quite exist in yourself.

"Think a Second Time" is the only book I've read of Prager's (I've also read his columns for some time). I liked it, and as far as I know it's representative of his views, though I have to be cautious in claiming that because I haven't read any other of his books.

Is a tu quoque supposed to somehow serve as a refutation?

R.K., tu quoque?? can you translate that for us non-Latin speakers?

tu quoque: any argument which seeks to negate a criticism by accusing the critic of the same thing: "well, you do it, too".

More here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html.

Justin wrote:

That he hasn't just "moved on with his life," but has moved on with it so much as to replace Terri with another woman — indeed, building more of a family with that other woman than he has with his wife — raises severe questions about the credibility of his testimony regarding his wife's wishes.

If all he wanted to do was replace Terri with another woman, he could have divorced Terri years ago and handed guardianship over to the Schinders, who would have willingly accepted it. The fact that he stubbornly retained gaurdian ship implies to me that he did feel a responsibility to care for Terri according to her wishes.

"If all he wanted to do was replace Terri with another woman, he could have divorced Terri years ago and handed guardianship over to the Schinders, who would have willingly accepted it. The fact that he stubbornly retained gaurdian ship implies to me that he did feel a responsibility to care for Terri according to her wishes."

Why don't you think that he just wants the medical malpractice settlement money? I think if he really felt a devotion to Terri & to carry out her wishes, he would have been more discreet, at least, with his extramarital dalliances.

Believe or not I've been listening to Prager a lot since the election. He tends to use a lot of extreme left wing-nut positions to stereotype anyone who is not a Republican. Of course, a lot of liberals do the same thing, using the most extreme conservative positions (ban "Satanic Books" like Harry Potter from schools, ban the teaching of evolution, ban nay entertainment not described as "family").

There is a tendancy for people on both sides to have a sterotyped, charactured view of the other side's views. The reality is that there are people on both sides who think simplisticly, as well as intelliectuals who can eloquently explain their positions. I believe that everone ought to expose themselves to thoughts & arguemnts that conflict with their own beliefs. When one is frequently re-examining their own beliefs, one gets closer to the truth for themselves.

I've read "Happiness is a Serious Problem" by Dennis Prager, and I recommend it. It's better than "Think a Second Time."

I admire Prager very much, but I wouldn't call him representative of American conservatism. Prager stands out because he is willing to brush aside moral relativism and think seriously about moral issues. He is a traditionalist, in that he is an observant Jew. His specialty is morality, not politics.

Dancar,

"I believe that everone ought to expose themselves to thoughts & arguemnts that conflict with their own beliefs. When one is frequently re-examining their own beliefs, one gets closer to the truth for themselves."

How often do you think that liberals in the mainstream media, entertainment media, Madison avenue, or the academy expose themselves to thoughts and arguments that conflict with their own beliefs? I'm aware of very few prominent liberals who take conservative ideas seriously and actually address them without dismissing them as bigoted or ignorant. I'm curious who you would name in this group. (There's a somewhat larger group of people, e.g. Mark Shields, who are respectful towards conservatives, but who don't demonstrate that they really understand conservative positions very well.)

Dancar, if you've listened to Prager's radio show, then you probably know more about him than I do. How does he compare with, say, Limbaugh or Medved?

Dancar: "There is a tendancy for people on both sides to have a sterotyped, charactured view of the other side's views. The reality is that there are people on both sides who think simplisticly, as well as intelliectuals who can eloquently explain their positions."

Can someone please explain this presumption that any criticism of liberal ideas must also apply to conservative ideas, and is therefore irrelevant? It makes absolutely no sense to me, as a matter of logic.

Me: "X"
Liberal: "Oh yeah? Well, X to you, too!"

That's not an intellectual discussion. It's the blurring and destruction of distinctions, which is precisely what the linked Prager column is about. If we can't make any distinctions, then we can't think. If we can't think, then we can't find truth. Without truth, all we have is power.

So let's try this from the other end. For those of you who keep insisting that the two sides are equivalent on this or that point: Is there any meaningful distinction between liberal and conservative ideas? Note that we aren't talking about people here. We aren't talking about whether those who hold the ideas are good or bad, smart or stupid, etc. We're talking about the ideas themselves, and the thought patterns behind them.

Or try a different angle: Do liberals even believe that liberal ideas are better than conservative ideas, or do they merely believe that liberals are better people than conservatives? I ask this not to be snarky, but because so much of what I hear from liberals is that conservatives are really bad people. It's rare to find a liberal like Reality Based who can credibly claim to have understood and then rejected conservative ideas.

To illustrate, here's a fun line from a recent blog post by a historian who attended an annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians:

". . . at one point I was imprudent enough to let on to a young woman that I had voted for George W. Bush. "And yet you write books," she responded."
http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=6437

Ben: Do liberals even believe that liberal ideas are better than conservative ideas, or do they merely believe that liberals are better people than conservatives?

I don't think liberal and conservative are properties of ideas. They describe an idea's relationship to a social context.

So if someone says that liberal ideas are better than conservative ideas (or vice versa) without further describing the ideas' substance, there is really nothing to talk about except social dynamics, because that's all that "liberal" or "conservative" defines.

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life support, although he did argue in court that that is what she would want.

This is disingenuous at best. Michael made the decision the remove the feeding tube (not life support, unless food and water is considered "life support" - in which case we are all on life support) the second he decided to petition the court to do so. Courts don't do a darn thing unless a party asks them to do it. Thus, had Michael never petitioned the court, then Terri would be alive today. He is as responsible for the decision as anyone (and likely more so, as he provided the evidence).

Part of the marriage contract is that society is supposed to accept what you say, absent other evidence.

Interesting point. In typical contract law, when one party breaches the contract, they lose all rights under the contract vis a vis the nonbreaching party. If what you say is true, what rights, if any, does or should Michael have in light of the incontestable fact he violated the marriage contract terms of fidelity? Or should society recognize only certain parts of the marriage contract, and ignore others? Hmm, fathering children with another woman would seem to be "other evidence".

Ben,
since you took such care to explain that your question was not asked simply to be snarky, I'll try to answer it.
To the extent that I hold 'liberal'ideas, I do so because I believe that they are good ones; i.e., promote general well-being. I realize that this smacks of utilitarianism, but to my thinking, most labor laws (forty hour work week, workplace safety regulations, that sort of thing) are good for most people involved. I think public transportation is better for people than no public transportation would be. Prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to prospective tenants on the basis of race or religion infringes on their economic rights, just as prohibiting employers from refusing to hire on those bases does; however, I believe that idea is fundamentally good.

I don't think all conservatives are bad people, any more than I believe that all liberals are good people. On a purely selfish level, I'd rather have lunch with Bill Whittle (www.ejectejecteject.com) than Gloria Allred.

A lot of this is due to my father's influence. He thought FDR was the greatest President this or any nation ever had.

But in this case, it's the Conservatives that are sticking their noses and second-guessing provate (sic) decisions, while liberals say "hands off!"

When a private decision needs a state court and armed state militia to carry it out, it is no longer a private decision.

Actually this is the tactic of Conservatives who insist that Michael Schiavo had no right to act on behalf of Terri because of Michael's relationship and children with another woman.

Not really. There is no need to make a moral judgment at all based upon his other relationship. The only thing that the other relationship proves is that Michael has moved on and is no longer acting as Terri's spouse IN REALITY, so why should the legal fiction be maintained? His moving on may be perfectly understandable. But the fact is he moved on, and therefore has forfeited his position to make decisions for Terri. When Jimmy Johnson moved on to the Dolphins, no one would expect he still had the right to call plays for the Cowboys. Whether moving to the fins was a good, bad or indifferent move matters not - he moved on, that is what matters.

I have no doubt that Ben hasn't a clue of what the liberal Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for.

Or the liberal Jesse Jacksin....oh wait, he was on Terri's, not Michael's side. See, with all this inconsistent liberal behavior, how is a conservative supposed to know how a "liberal" MLK, Jr. would have come down on Terri's situation?

Robert,

"A lot of this is due to my father's influence. He thought FDR was the greatest President this or any nation ever had."

There's a lot of people who develop an attachment to one party or the other, and retain ties to that party for a long time, often passing the ties to further generations.

But, since we're talking about ideas, here, and not voting patterns, what do you think of FDR, his policies, and his actions? Is your father's view of him justified? Why or why not?

>Me: "X"
>Liberal: "Oh yeah? Well, X to you, too!"

R.K. just covered this, Ben, with the tu quoque comment above...

By the way, if you take away the tu quoque strategy, Mark Miller and Joel Thomas won't have much left to say...

Matt,

"I don't think liberal and conservative are properties of ideas. They describe an idea's relationship to a social context."

Yes, in the current social, political, and philosophical context, the words "liberal" and "conservative" have broadly well-understood connotations - are you saying that you don't know what ideas or philosophies those connotations refer to?. Everbody knows that liberals are not homogenous, and that conservatives aren't homogenous, and that ideas that current liberals hold haven't always been called "liberal", and that ideas that current conservatives hold haven't always been called "conservative". So what? What is your point, that "liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning? That there is no point to discussing broad political differences? That there are no ideas or patterns of thought that are generally applicable to liberals or conservatives?

Does anybody want to defend the notion that there are no significant difference, either in underlying political philosophy, or in practical outcomes, between the current Democratic and Republican parties? Or between modern liberals and conservatives? It's silly to have a discussion about the differences, if people think there aren't any significant differences. (Of course, I think it's silly to claim there are no significant differences, but we at least have to establish that one way or the other before we can move on to talk about those differences, if they exist.)

Mike: Yes, in the current social, political, and philosophical context, the words "liberal" and "conservative" have broadly well-understood connotations - are you saying that you don't know what ideas or philosophies those connotations refer to?

I might know which ideas are liberal and conservative in today's context, but only because I have observed conservative and liberal groups espouse those ideas. Sometimes the association between groups and ideas is philosophically coherent, but in other cases it looks like mere historical accident.

What is your point, that "liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning? That there is no point to discussing broad political differences? That there are no ideas or patterns of thought that are generally applicable to liberals or conservatives?

Liberal and conservative patterns of thought do exist, of course. It can be useful to discuss these patterns, in the interest of political harmony and in promoting reason over raw emotion when considering ideas.

My point is that we shouldn't put too much stock in those patterns when evaluating the validity of an idea. If a group of people believes A and B, and we find A to be incorrect, we can't also find B incorrect by association.

Ben wrote: “Can someone please explain this presumption that any criticism of liberal ideas must also apply to conservative ideas, and is therefore irrelevant? It makes absolutely no sense to me, as a matter of logic.”
------ Sure, I will. You seem to be saying that your accusations are legitimate but any accusations made against your view are not. This is not a level playing field for debate. It doesn’t make the points you make irrelevant, but it does not allow for any debate. You are free to believe that liberal criticisms are generally based on demagoguery while conservative criticisms are not. But if you are not going to allow people who disagree with you the same argumentative tools that you use, then I contend that you have no interest in a serious intellectual discussion. I guess if you were a trial judge only one side would be allow to ‘object’.

Iraq War: All I want to say here is that Ben seems to be convinced that the divide on this issue is based on ‘liberal’ vs. ‘conservative’ ideology. I happen to support the war for most of the reasons Ben has mentioned. But I believe that if a Democrat were in the White House and had made the same choice that Bush did, that Rush Limbaugh would be counting the number of deaths while Dan Rather would be talking about the success of the elections. Tony Blair is the leader of most liberal party in a liberal country. There were other leaders who joined the coalition who are not considered ‘liberal’. Of course, there is the anti-war left who opposes any military action regardless of circumstance. But they are a fringe of liberalism. I do not think that Ben is one of those who oppose the war if a Democrat had made the decision but my point is that there is no basis that this issue is divided by conservative or liberal ideological grounds.

Ben wrote: No, I wouldn't say that conservatism is inherently more complicated than liberalism. The distinction is in how much each side knows about the other. Liberalism can be quite complicated, but we're all familiar with it because we're surrounded by it. We grew up with it. We had to hear about it in college all the time. Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV is you want to hear some liberalism. If you want to understand conservatism, you have to go find it.
------- Pithiness withstanding but … are you serious ? Yes, most college campuses lean heavily liberal and there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media. But are you even implying that conservative thought is difficult to find ? Please. I’ll go so far to say that ANY line of thought is easy to find these days - by radio, TV, web, magazine, anywhere. To say that liberalism is everywhere but conservatism is hidden is absolutely ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the agenda of ‘Air America’ to combat the conservative bias on the radio airwaves. Thirty years ago before the internet and cable TV, you might have been able to say this. Not anymore.

I do agree with Ben's response to Reality Based about “blaming America first” about the war and Saddam Hussein.

Ben wrote: Again, you’re trying to force the situation into an ideological mold the insists that both sides must be equal in every way. From everything that I’ve seen, conservatives do not make many broad claims about what specific liberals think. We make claims about what they do, and the consequences of what they do.
----- I have to go with Reality Based here. Your comment isn’t about a specific ideological mold, it is about how one defends what you believe. And you seem to be saying that conservatives defend their beliefs in a superior fashion than liberals do. First, I don’t agree. Do you really believe that conservatives generally do not make broad claims about liberals ? Second, and more importantly, so what. What does that mean ? That conservatives would make better litigators because they use superior persuasive techniques ? I thought we are here to debate the merits of the issue.

Joel: “I have no doubt that Ben hasn't a clue of what the liberal Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for.” This is exactly what I’m talking about. You are completely comfortable making wild assertions about what I know or don’t know---on the basis of nothing at all!
------ I agree with Ben’s response. Where I disagree with him is that assertions like Joel made are unique to liberals. Not even close.

Ben wrote: His point is simply that modern liberalism is about blurring distinctions. That hardly seems debatable as a factual matter. For example, he points out that the Left wants to blur the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Do you really dispute that? Isn’t that precisely what the SSM debate is all about? It’s fine to argue that we ought to eliminate the distinction. But can’t we at least observe that a distinction is being eliminated?
------ You can’t be serious. Yes, support of SSM is based on blurring the distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Is your point that conservatives don’t want to blur distinctions ? How about the attempt to blur the distinction between euthanasia and cold-blooded murder ? How about the attempt to blur the distinction between Nazi Germany and Castro’s Cuba in the Elian Gonzalez case ? There are other examples too. The point is that both liberals and conservatives alike use the ‘blurring of distinctions”. They just have different when’s and whys ?

R.K. wrote: "Is a tu quoque supposed to somehow serve as a refutation?"

----- Actually, it is in this context. When person A asserts “y is wrong and x does y while z does not do y”, and then person B responds with an example serving that z does indeed do y – that does serve as a refutation. This is because A is being refuted in his assertion that “z does not do y”.

Now, if A said “x does y” and B simply responded “well, z does y too”. That is not a refutation of what A said but a possible example of hypocrisy assuming A’s main point is that y is wrong.

Mike S. “By the way, if you take away the tu quoque strategy, Mark Miller and Joel Thomas won't have much left to say...”

------- Easy to say coming from someone who asserts all the time but when someone makes a counterpoint he either accuses them of ‘not staying on-point’ or just ignores it. Assert and run, assert and run. Good strategy.

"but when someone makes a counterpoint"

The point is that your counterpoints are almost invariably of the tu quoque variety - there's nothing to debate, whether I agree with you or not.

When I get time, I'll post a real reply, but for now, I sure would like somebody to define "tu quoque" so that I could better understand what you're discussing

Mark Miller, you said:

"How about the attempt to blur the distinction between euthanasia and cold-blooded murder ?"

Could you explain for me what you see as the distinction between euthanasia and cold-blooded murder? I need to understand why you think there needs to be a distinction between them. And maybe if you've got time you could even explain the distinction you see in your following example.

Ben:

I find Prager interesting because he is an independent thinker who doesn't always jump on whatever position other conservatives jump onto. For example, his views on Terri Schiavo were less extreme than those of many conservatives, and many of his callers debated him on this

Can someone please explain this presumption that any criticism of liberal ideas must also apply to conservative ideas, and is therefore irrelevant? It makes absolutely no sense to me, as a matter of logic.

Me: "X"
Liberal: "Oh yeah? Well, X to you, too!"

I was refering to the practice of using an extreme, easily refutable position held by a small number of the other side to discredit the whole other side.

Conservative: Ward Churchill said that 9/11 victims got what they deserved. Liberals always blame America first!!

Liberal: A Conservative said that Sponge Bob Square Pants is gay! Conservatives believe in a gay conspiracy to recruit children!!

During the election, I objected to all those jokes about Bush being not very bright. While I strongly supported Kerry, I thought that the constant barrage of "Bush is a dummy" jokes damaged the credibility of those supporting Kerry.

Do liberals even believe that liberal ideas are better than conservative ideas, or do they merely believe that liberals are better people than conservatives? I ask this not to be snarky, but because so much of what I hear from liberals is that conservatives are really bad people. It's rare to find a liberal like Reality Based who can credibly claim to have understood and then rejected conservative ideas.

This is a generalization some (I'll admit too many) liberals do believe that conservatives are greedy, selfish bigots. But too many conservatives believe that liberals are out do do things like "destroy the American family". I find that more moderate republicans and democrats tend to have a bettr understanding of the other side's views.

Mike S.:

How often do you think that liberals in the mainstream media, entertainment media, Madison avenue, or the academy expose themselves to thoughts and arguments that conflict with their own beliefs?

I'll admit: not often enough!

I'm aware of very few prominent liberals who take conservative ideas seriously and actually address them without dismissing them as bigoted or ignorant.

My favorite is Dave Ross, who is a radio talk show host in Seattle and also does commentaries for CBS radio. I'm not certain he qaulifies as "liberal" although he did run for Congress as a democrat.

I'm aware of very few prominent conservatives who take liberal ideas seriously and actually address them without dismissing them as evil-intentioned or ignorant.

R.K. posted the following at 7:32 AM this morning:

tu quoque: any argument which seeks to negate a criticism by accusing the critic of the same thing: "well, you do it, too".

More here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html.

Dancar,

"I was refering to the practice of using an extreme, easily refutable position held by a small number of the other side to discredit the whole other side."

Then you should point out how the accusation is only applicable to a small small number of liberals, not point out that conservatives can be caricatured as well.

"Conservative: Ward Churchill said that 9/11 victims got what they deserved. Liberals always blame America first!!"

This is just a more extreme version of the position that many liberals took, that somehow America was responsible for bringing the attacks onto us, based upon our foreign policies. The point is not that America should never be blamed, or that introspection isn't a good thing, it's the intinct to always look first to what America has done wrong, and to not apply anything remotely like the same standards to other countries.

But Churchill is a good example of the liberal bias in the academy - how else could such a buffoon (without a PhD!) get to be a tenured department chair?

The fact that he stubbornly retained gaurdian ship implies to me that he did feel a responsibility to care for Terri according to her wishes.

Or started the process with an eye on her estate. Or maybe just hated the Schindlers that much. Or whatever. There's no basis for your sunny view of his motives, which means that an objective assessment raises questions about his credibility.

Mark: “You seem to be saying that your accusations are legitimate but any accusations made against your view are not. . . . But if you are not going to allow people who disagree with you the same argumentative tools that you use, then I contend that you have no interest in a serious intellectual discussion.”

I really don’t know what you’re talking about here, Mark. You’ll have to be more specific. What tools do I use that I deny others?

Me: “If you want to understand conservatism, you have to go find it.”
Mark: “are you serious ? . . . are you even implying that conservative thought is difficult to find ?”

I’m not implying anything beyond what I wrote: Until very recently, if you wanted to hear conservative ideas, you had to go find them. You wouldn’t find them in newspapers or on broadcast TV. All you got was liberalism.

Mark: “To say that liberalism is everywhere but conservatism is hidden is absolutely ridiculous.”

No, it isn’t ridiculous. Shall we march through the numbers on media bias? Shall we look at readership? Shall we look at how many people still believe the old canard about an unbiased media?

Mark: “Thirty years ago before the internet and cable TV, you might have been able to say this. Not anymore.”

Not thirty years, Mark. Maybe three. Maybe even five. But nowhere close to thirty.

Mark: “Do you really believe that conservatives generally do not make broad claims about liberals?”

I really believe that conservatives are far less likely to try to win a political argument by attacking the moral character of the other side.

Mark: “Second, and more importantly, so what. What does that mean ?”

It means, as I said before, that liberalism is brittle. It has lost its vitality. It can’t succeed in the arena of ideas. As the old legal cliché goes, when the law and the facts are against you, you pound the table. You issue speech codes. You call people names. You try to convince spectators not to believe anything that your opponent says, because he’s such a vile person. A hypocrite. A fundamentalist. A bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist chauvinist pig. (The insults are so cliched by now that they roll off the tongue.) Call him anything at all to convince people to listen to what he’s saying—because you can’t counter what he’s saying.

This is how all dying orthodoxies defend themselves. Did Galileo’s accusers pull out their telescopes to try to prove him wrong? Did the 1950s southern racists try to prove the inferiority of other races? Does the lynch mob at Harvard care whether boys and girls actually have different aptitudes for math? No! What they want is to silence the opposition, and they’ll do it any way they can. One of the easiest ways is slander: “Don’t listen to what that guy says. He’s a really bad guy.” As soon as I hear that, I immediately suspect that the person telling me those words knows that he will lose a serious argument.

Mark: “Is your point that conservatives don’t want to blur distinctions ?”
Yes. We try to avoid blurring traditional moral distinctions, because we want to be able to make complex and precise moral judgments. That was the point of Prager’s column.

Mark: “How about the attempt to blur the distinction between euthanasia and cold-blooded murder?”
That would be creating a relatively new distinction, rather than erasing an old one. And what is the distinction, exactly? Evidence from the Netherlands suggests that there isn’t much of one. Permitting euthanasia quickly turns into the murder of undesirables. Refusing to recognize new and untenable distinctions is not the same as blurring old ones.

Mark: “How about the attempt to blur the distinction between Nazi Germany and Castro’s Cuba in the Elian Gonzalez case?”
You’ll have to explain the major distinction you’re seeing. Both offer essentially no political freedom. That was the point of the comparison, I suspect.

You’re taking the idea of distinctions too broadly. I’m talking about moral distinctions: Behavior A is different from Behavior B. Person X is different from Person Y. And on that basis, we should be free to treat those behaviors and people differently. The liberal impulse is to claim that everyone is the same, and should be treated the same.

I don’t see how that is open to dispute. Liberals should be proud of their record for eliminating many harmful distinctions, such as racial distinctions. There’s nothing inherently wrong with eliminating distinctions. The question is whether it’s a good idea to eliminate a specific distinction. The liberal agenda seems to include eliminating moral distinctions for its own sake, even when those distinctions appear to be potentially quite important.

Dancar: “I was referring to the practice of using an extreme, easily refutable position held by a small number of the other side to discredit the whole other side.”

That’s a fair point, as far as it goes. But I see a distinction: The liberal wackos are much more influential than the conservative wackos. They’re organized, they’ve got lots of money, and they’re pushing their ideas hard. They probably don’t represent the majority of people who call themselves liberals; that’s why the Democrats are having such a hard time. But the soft liberals are willing to donate to, vote for, and otherwise obey the hard liberals with the really crazy and dangerous ideas. Your loonies far more dangerous than ours.

Dancar: “some (I'll admit too many) liberals do believe that conservatives are greedy, selfish bigots. But too many conservatives believe that liberals are out to do things like "destroy the American family".”

First, observe the distinction between character attack (greedy, selfish) and inference of intent (want to destroy the family). Conservatives almost never use character denigration to liberals in general. I’m not sure what that means, exactly, but as a factual matter I think it’s true.

Second, most of that inference of intent from the right is really shorthand for either 1) an assertion that liberal leaders want to accomplish those goals, and rank-and-file liberals will likely follow, or 2) an assertion about the consequence of an idea or policy, even if those advocating the idea or policy claim not to want the consequence.

As an example of 2, I assume that most SSM proponents do not intend to help polygamists, pedophiles, etc. in their quest for legalization and normalization. But those things will still happen, regardless of what SSM advocates intend. A sloppy expression of that idea might be: “You want to legalize polygamy,” simply because it’s more convenient to say, “You advocate policies that will lead to polygamy, even though you don’t intend it.”

Dancar: “I'm aware of very few prominent conservatives who take liberal ideas seriously and actually address them without dismissing them as evil-intentioned or ignorant.”

That’s because liberal ideas are so old, and the arguments about them among conservatives were settled decades ago. Nobody rails against phrenology or phlogiston any more, because they were discredited so very long ago. If liberals came up with ideas that were more than warmed-over communism or socialism, then we conservatives would be happy to consider them. Maybe you’ll change our minds. But all I ever hear from liberals is the same old stuff: Destroy the old institutions! Rise up against your oppressors! Redistribute the wealth! Put government in control of everything!

I sincerely hope that liberals will someday come up with some new ideas. It would be good for the country if they did, and the Democrats will continue to take a beating at the ballot box until they do.

Mark Miller:

"R.K. wrote: 'Is a tu quoque supposed to
somehow serve as a refutation?'

----- Actually, it is in this context. When person A asserts 'y is wrong and x does y while z does not do y', and then person B responds with an example serving that z does indeed do y – that does serve as a refutation. This is because A is being refuted in his assertion that 'z does not do y'."

Only if A is stating that z never does y, and if that is A's primary point. If A is merely stating that y is wrong and that x does y more often than z does, giving examples where z does y is not a refutation but merely a demonstration that z is not perfect either. And it definitely is not a refutation of A's point that y is wrong.

If A states that x does y, and that y is wrong, and B states that z also does y, A should respond: "Thank you for pointing this out. For my part, since I pointed out that x does y, I will take more care not only in trying not to do y myself but also in encouraging z not to do y. And in turn I hope you, B, will also try not to do y and will encourage x not to do it either. And that you both acknowledge, as I do, that y is wrong, unless you can demonstrate that it is not wrong other than by pointing out that z does it too, which tells us nothing about the rightness of y."

Mark: "Now, if A said 'x does y' and B simply responded 'well, z does y too'. That is not a refutation of what A said but a possible example of hypocrisy assuming A’s main point is that y is wrong."

And the hypocrisy proves what? Nothing more, again, than z's imperfection. What is so often implied is that pointing out hypocrisy negates and thus refutes the argument that y is wrong, and that therefore x can just continue doing y because x is thus no worse than z. This is fallacious. If both x and z do y, this is a reason for both to try to not do it, not to continue to do it.

Sheesh – I check out for a few days, and an encyclopedia gets written. I’d like to reply to much more, but I’ll start with these:

Ben: “Liberals are full of good intentions; they just don't like to examine the consequences of their actions.”

Sure we do : forty hour work week, child labor laws, workplace safety requirements, the end of the Great Depression, women can vote, African-Americans can attend school with European-Americans (sit in the front of buses, eat at restaurants, drink from drinking fountains, in many states, they can vote, etc.), 70 years of some level of guaranteed retirement benefits for older Americans, some level of environmental protection (actually, Nixon started the EPA, but since then, liberals have defended it while conservatives have fought to neuter it), among others.

“The conservatives have freed millions of people from oppression, while the liberals would have kept the Iraqi rape rooms running as the UN would have debated endlessly.”

The Iraqis are still being oppressed, they are still being tortured, they are still being jailed without due process, their cities are being bombed out of existence. Casting a vote does not mean there is democracy - people voted in the USSR.
Conservatives have consistently advocated and carried out military and covert interventions designed to keep oppressors in power, or to place them in power, because these oppressors have been “good” (profitable) for American elites: Iran 1953 – CIA overthrew popularly elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh because he wanted use more of the profit from Iran’s oil for his own people’s benefit. Guatemala 1954 – US installed military junta responsible for tens of thousands of deaths over the course of 30 years, again because the democratically elected government wanted to help that nation’s poor - Somoza, Marcos, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Diem, Thieu, Chung Kai Shek, Pinochet. These are all tyrannical oppressors who have been installed or propped up by American conservatives in government.

“Here again we must distinguish between thoughts and behavior. You may not have intended to help Saddam by protesting the war. For argument, I’ll assume that your motives were as pure as the driven snow. But to a conservative, that’s largely irrelevant. To a conservative, the question is: What effect did your behavior have in the real world? Is it really so hard to imagine that Saddam took comfort and encouragement in watching you and those like you protesting, even though you didn’t intend to encourage him?”

He may well have taken comfort and encouragement from that; but this is hardly comparable to the tangible, direct support that he received from the Reagan administration in the 1980’s, at the time that he was committing his worst atrocities (chemical warfare, slaughter of the Kurds, etc.) The following web site has a summary, along with links to declassified government documents from that period.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

“Is it so difficult to imagine that some of our soldiers might be alive today had some Iraqi general not been encouraged to fight on by news stories suggesting that America might lose heart and withdraw at any moment?”

Actually, yes, it is. As far as I’m aware, the US military rolled over the Iraqi military in a matter of days – pretty much limited only by the speed at which the tanks could go. But even if you’re right – even if some of our soldiers wouldn’t have died as you suggested, NONE of them would have died or been injured if we hadn’t invaded in the first place.

“It seems to be an article of liberal faith that any criticism of one person can be turned into a criticism of anyone else. I don’t agree with that. There are real differences between conservatives and liberals.”

Yes, of course there are differences, but there are also similarities. Differences about policies: invade/don’t invade, etc. Similarities in that there is wide variation among the group labeled “liberals”: some are intelligent, some are not, some vilify their opponents, some do not, some are rich, some are poor. Can you not see that there is a similar variation among members of the group labeled “conservative” ?

“Blaming America first is a description of behavior, not belief. It is the simple observation that, for a certain group of people, anything that can possibly be blamed on the United States will be blamed on it, and all other considerations will essentially be ignored. You can conduct whatever complex thoughts you like within your own mind, but the practical result will be to blame America at every opportunity. It isn’t an attempt at reading minds; it’s a description of behavior.”

Is personal responsibility sucha complex thought? I am responsible for my own behavior. I am a citizen of a democracy, therefore I am also responsible for my government’s behavior. It is my personal responsibility as a citizen to monitor my own government’s actions and inactions and to demand that it act morally.

“For example, you apparently blame the United States for the suffering of the Iraqis. You don’t seem to blame Saddam, or the United Nations, or any other country that could have stepped in at some earlier time and closed the rape rooms earlier. Somehow, it’s all our fault. Doesn’t “blame America first” accurately describe that? You are blaming America. First. You aren’t blaming anyone else, are you?”

I guess one of the differences that I see between conservatives’ and liberals’ positions is that conservatives don’t apply the same moral standards to collective (national) behavior that they do to personal behavior. It is my understanding that conservatives believe that on a personal level, people should take responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking for others to blame – but they don’t seem to extend this moral standard to the national level. I do.

Reality Based: “I personally understand conservatives quite well; I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, for 18 years I went to church 3 times a week, I received a nomination from my Senator to attend West Point . . . “

“An interesting story. What changed your mind? It’s a cliché that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. So what happens to a conservative to turn him into a liberal?”

In a nutshell, Central America in the 1980’s, and the decision to consider the possibility that we are not always perfect, to look at the evidence before reaching a decision (about whether our actions are moral or not), and to apply the same standards to my own nation that I had been taught to apply to others. I’ll supply a fuller answer later, if you’d like.

“I remember giving up a long-held dream of an academic career---because my views on politics were not acceptable.”

I’ve read some of Horowitz’s posts on web sites, and I’m not convinced. If you don’t mind elaborating, what was/is your field, and how were you prevented from entering it?

“You want a book recommendation? Try the Black Book of Communism. Take a long, hard look at the trail of corpses your predecessors have left behind in their quest for egalitarian Utopia. Communism, like liberalism, was a very pretty idea. But count the dead bodies.”

My predecessors are Gandhi, FDR, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Bob Marley, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Zinn, and Amy Goodman, among others. With the exception of FDR, none of these left behind dead bodies (other than their own). I'm well aware of the evils of the USSR, China (I lived in Taiwan for 5 years), etc.- that's why I don't propose following thier model.

I don’t look to Mao and Stalin for guidance any more than you look to Hitler and Mussolini.

Reality Based, you are correct that American liberals have accomplished great things:

... forty hour work week, child labor laws, workplace safety requirements, the end of the Great Depression, women can vote, African-Americans can attend school with European-Americans ... guaranteed retirement benefits ... environmental protection ...

but the accomplishments you list tend to support one of Ben's points:

Liberals should be proud of their record for eliminating many harmful distinctions, such as racial distinctions. ... I sincerely hope that liberals will someday come up with some new ideas. It would be good for the country if they did

What, if anything, has the liberal faction accomplished since the 1960's, and what are they working for today? In more recent times, they spend most of their energy holding the line on past gains rather than advancing society, which makes it questionable whether "liberal" is still an appropriate label.

Matt's comment implies an additional point. Reality Based uses a shifting scale to claim credit for the actions of people who were conservative by today's lines (e.g., MLK). By the standard of MLK's "liberalism," I'm probably a liberal, too!

RB probably won't be able to see it, but that he includes Chomsky and Zinn on his list of heroes (I know too little about Kucinich to mention him) illustrates the point.

"the end of the Great Depression,"

was caused by WWII. You can give FDR credit for that, I suppose, but it was inevitable that we would enter it. It's highly likely that his economic policies actually prolonged the Great Depression, or made it worse. (i.e. price fixing)

"African-Americans can attend school with European-Americans (sit in the front of buses, eat at restaurants, drink from drinking fountains, in many states, they can vote, etc.),"

Which party was it that opposed the Civil Rights Act again?

"70 years of some level of guaranteed retirement benefits for older Americans,"

Also known as a Ponzi scheme that is screwing younger workers and is not sustainable. And was sold to the public by lying about it (that it wasn't a simple tax). And who is resisting fixes to the program to make it more sustainable?

"The Iraqis are still being oppressed, they are still being tortured, they are still being jailed without due process, their cities are being bombed out of existence."

By whom are they being oppressed? It's not Americans that are kidnapping people and beheading them, or blowing up Iraqi police recruits. They're not being tortured by Americans, either. (Spare me the Abu Ghraib spiel - having to wear women's panties on your head is not torture. Being placed in a plastic shredder feet first is.) I have no doubt that there are some innocent Iraqis who have been jailed, and yes, they don't yet have a fully fledged due process of law system set up - that's why they're working on a constitution now. It beggars the imagination to think that the average Iraqi isn't orders of magnitude better off now then he was when Saddam was in power. "Why don't they instantaneously have the rule of law, a functioning legislature, and a stable judiciary?" Does that question really need answering?

As for their cities being bombed out of existence, what language are you speaking? In order for that statement to make any sense at all you must have a very different understanding of "cities", "bombed", and/or "existence" than the common definitions. Can you elaborate?

"I guess one of the differences that I see between conservatives’ and liberals’ positions is that conservatives don’t apply the same moral standards to collective (national) behavior that they do to personal behavior. It is my understanding that conservatives believe that on a personal level, people should take responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking for others to blame – but they don’t seem to extend this moral standard to the national level. I do."

The issue is not individual vs. collective, it's one nation vs. another, or one individual vs. another. The starkest example here is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If a Palestinian suidide bomber intentionally kills as many innocent Israeli civilians as possible, to the point that they put rat poison in the bomb to inhibit blood coagulation, his action is deemed regrettable but understandable given the "oppression" he lives under. Yet if the Israeli Defense Forces are carrying out an operation to defend themselves from terrorists and unintentionally kill an innocent Palestinian, that is the grossest of moral outrages.

Likewise, if you applied even the faintest of a level playing field to the U.S. and Iraq under Hussein, there would be no contest. If you rank the number of moral problems associated with each country, the top 20 (at least) would all belong to Iraq. Yet, at best, the left treats the two as equal, if not treating the US as worse.

"In a nutshell, Central America in the 1980’s, and the decision to consider the possibility that we are not always perfect,"

Central America saw a wave of democracy arise during the 1980's and 1990's. The fact that there were a few atrocities committed by groups the US was supporting, and which were blown all out of proportion by the media, doesn't give you the right to ignore all the beneficial results that Reagan's policies enabled. Nor does it give you the right to ignore the atrocities committed by the leftist governments and groups.

What Conservative has ever said the US is perfect? The question is how do we compare relative to other countries, or to any given country? You don't have to be blind to our flaws, but you have to not be blind to our successes, and not be blind to the flaws of other countries.

"I don’t look to Mao and Stalin for guidance any more than you look to Hitler and Mussolini."

Maybe you don't, but many of your ideological cohort do or did. Look at all the fools who wear Che Guevara t-shirts and hang his poster on their walls.

"I’ve read some of Horowitz’s posts on web sites, and I’m not convinced. If you don’t mind elaborating, what was/is your field, and how were you prevented from entering it?"

Here's one contemporary illustration of campus political bias.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040705D.html

Here's another example: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/06/local/stories/01local.htm
(If you can find examples of similar behavior from conservatives being tolerated on campus, let us know...)

he said:

"I personally understand conservatives quite well; I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, for 18 years I went to church 3 times a week.."