Skip to main content

I've been an independent much of my life.  When I registered with either party, it was generally to support an insurgent candidate (McGovern in 72, McCain in 2000--both quixotic campaigns in many ways).   I have endured slings and arrows from the purists on all sides, and so I can speak from experience when I try to compare them.  Actually, the difference is simple.

When I advocate something which goes against liberal orthodoxy, my liberal friends react with indignation or consternation.  But they try to reason or debate me to their point of view.

When I advocate something which goes against conservative orthodoxy, my conservative "friends" accuse me of being unpatriotic or worse.  They rarely grant that there might actually be a legitimate debate.  That is why I have fewer and fewer conservative friends.

More to the point: When these discussions occur in public forums, liberals react with everything from discussion to derision or dismissal.  Conservatives react by saying I deserve to die.  

Maybe I don't have a sense of humor, but to me that is a big difference.   The very premise of this country was pluralism.  Liberals appear still to embrace this idea.  The essence of today's brand of conservatism is exclusion, to the point of wishing death on many of their fellow Americans.  As members of a liberal board, most of you will probably have taken this for granted, but it deserves to be pointed out.

In their original incarnations, liberalism and conservatism were not about the things that divide us in 2014 America (gender issues, government programs, labor rights, etc.).  They were about openness to change vs. resistance to change.  Ironically, even though today's debate (including on this board) is couched in terms of things like women's rights, labor rights, social programs etc., it is really about resistance to change. And those who are resisting are so fearful that they believe the rest of us deserve to die.

THAT is the heart of the difference.  And there is no longer any way to deny it.

Originally posted to Wanderer1961 on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:11 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  sad but true (16+ / 0-)

    liberals think we're in this together, conservatives think it's every man for himself.

    So naturally liberals (at least some) will want to discuss it with you.

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:47:57 AM PST

    •   A strange political journey (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      supporting a candidate that was primarily known for his anti-war position in 1972, than supporting a pro-war hawk in 2000.

      Not a very consistent history. Perhaps war and peace is not very important to you? If so, that is not being consistent with most liberals.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 11:53:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  conservatives are not patriotic about the nation (8+ / 0-)

    but on behalf of special interests. This came out in the opposition to the admnistration of JQA which evolved down to Lincoln that if you want to keep the nation together you have to fight a war to do so. Now the nation is not even identified with government, what Washington warned about in the Farewell Address. What government was universally accepted, up until Snowden, was the secret government that operates outside the constitution.

    •  Conservatives wave their flags, (7+ / 0-)

      They brag about the apple pie, and applaud their mothers, shoot their guns in the air on the fourth of July, but when it comes to service to their country. . .


      Rarely, do you find any Republican Politician who sacrificed his valuable time for the service to his country.  Time is far to valuable in the pursuit of private greed.


      Conservatives always want to find wars for other people, and the children of other people to fight.  Conservatives want to stay home and profit from their investments in the military industrial complex.


      Conservatives don't want to get involved in the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty.  They want to end the War on Poverty and transfer the funds to the farmers not to grow crops and the bankers not to make loans.  They don't want to engage in the War on Drugs, except as the owners and investors of the Corporate prisons.

      When the Conservatives have discovered a way to make as much money selling drugs as they have in the corporate prison industry, then you will see a turn around in the Conservative position.

      Chickenhawks~!  What a remarkably descriptive term.

      My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

      by NM Ray on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:50:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're too busy running boiler room scams (4+ / 0-)

        that steal money and votes from working Americans.

        "Straight Line" persuasion system -- facts be damned, lies be damned. Anything to force their way.

        They're crooks.

        The key to it is a video of Tom DeLay preaching to a megachurch in Tennessee. It's crazy stuff. And what he's doing is hammering the Libruls, the people who lack values.

        They sell three main assets:

        -- Anti-abortion
        -- Ronald Reagan
        -- Race hatreds

        And there are several dozen hoaxes in play at any one time. One surprise is the frequency of the references to Ronald Reagan -- you'd think he was George Washington and that he had installed a force field that protected Americans from every threat.

        What they're selling is not a logical, rational portrayal of reality. Far from it. They do Ad Biz fantasy over and over.

      •   the so-called war on drugs very profitable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and an absolute failure and a huge waste, of lives and treasure. It's also primarily a war on the underclass, most of the ensnared black even though whites use drugs as much if not more

        Not only do the private prisons depend on it for a continuing flood of prisoners (many/most non-violent offenders), there are the banks laundering the money; the police depts getting public funds and military equipment (supposedly to fight terrorism), assets from civil forfeiture, and the financial rewards of just plain corruption; politicians; on and on. Then there's all the cocaine that helped fund our buddies the contras in the 80's.

        A more treatment-based model for addicts and legalization/ regulation wouldn't be nearly as profitable.

        But you are correct that the private prisons probably exert the most lobbying power against ending it.

        I am a recovering alcoholic, in other words an addict, sober for over 20 years, and cannot use any of these drugs, but would like to see an end to the  so-called war on drugs to end the waste and the corrosive effects on both public institutions like police and more generally, our society.

  •  I think the deliberate division into 'left' and (10+ / 0-)

    'right', 'liberal' or 'conservative' is damaging to simply actually getting useful things done for the people of the country.

    We should not simply 'sign on' to any policy, any program because it comes from 'the left' or 'the right', but rather demand that any new change or program starts with a trial period that evaluates the actual effects of the change, and then is re-evaluated and altered or ended as needed based upon those results, and that ideas shown to work incredibly badly are simply abandoned, not brought back over and over again simply because they fit a given ideology.

    We have gridlock in DC these days because far too many in office simply are locked into ideology, and treat making new legislation as blood-sport, rather than a way to actually help Americans, judging 'success' upon how well any change fits their ideology, rather than whether or not it helps the vast bulk of America.

    •  Blood Sport is apt description for legislators who (2+ / 0-)

      represent constituents fueled by the digital soapbox--Internet Forums, Social Media, talk radio, cable news--that simply validates extremism piled upon more extremism. Politics has become increasingly personal and vindictive and the loser is the marketplace of ideas.

      “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon, 1977.

      by Kvetchnrelease on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:46:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This diary suggests a substitute for lert/right (9+ / 0-)

      One side is the folks who might be willing to debate those who disagree with them.  The other side is ready to condemn those who disagree with them to death.

      By the way, I can sympathize with folks who don't want to bother debating people who disagree with them.  Sometimes (often) it can be obvious early on that trying to reason with someone will be a waste of time.  In that situation being dismissive makes sense; being derisively dismissive is impolite but probably saves you the trouble of having the conversation again -- and it doesn't deny the other person's right to exist.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:41:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A substitute for the leFt/right dichotomy is what (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        1toughlady, Mayfly

        I meant.  

        A shorthand might be "Opponent is wrong"/"Opponent should die".

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:42:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  On some occasions maybe "Opponent is wrong" cld (0+ / 0-)

          be phrased, "I fear I wasn't as clear as I should have been--let me illustrate my position this way."

          The right of the women of this State to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated by the State legislature.

          by Mayfly on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:20:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Come on in! The water's fine. (5+ / 0-)

    Unlike the Right, we do not have a purity test. But as you mentioned, any idea put forth is subject to scrutiny.

    •  "Librul baby killer !!" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Hindsight Times, wasatch

      Conservatives pretty much agree with that.

      Their brains are polluted with shocking collections of nasty phrases. Thing is, the GOP's allies have arranged media so there are dozens of sources for these phrases.

      The GOP, today, is built on hate.

      If they didn't have their Ad Biz machine rolling to generate hate, likely they'd go out of business in a year or two.

  •  They feel backed into a corner (12+ / 0-)

    Partly because they are.  The old ways are fading.  They always do.  There's always fear, anger, and resentment over it.

    Nothing new there.  But what is new in this country over the last 30 years is the intensity level of the anger ramped up to stratospheric levels by the propagandist methods of the conservative media.

    They believe they are under attack and about to be destroyed by pure evil.

    "A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance." -- George Orwell, 1984

    by Treats on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:38 AM PST

    •  Are the old ways really fading? (14+ / 0-)

      I just got done reading American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard, and the sense I get is that the "old ways" are fading in some places and intensifying in others; and, moreover, that not all of the old ways are fading equally. For instance, the nation as a whole may be moving toward marriage equality, but it's also moving toward elimination of workers' rights and subordination to the executive-financial elite. Multiculturalism may be on the rise, but democracy is on the wane.

      This isn't a single trend, with the arc of history bending toward something awesome. This is two factions in the country moving to opposite corners of the ring, getting freshened up so that they can come out to pummel the shit out of each other.

      The believe they are under attack and threatened with destruction. But I believe the same thing: that they will attack and destroy me if given the chance. I, too, feel backed into a corner.

      I don't see any easy way out, for myself, for them or for any of us.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:52:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only real ways out (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013, Zinman

        are to deprogram the conservatives from the nonsense they've been fed from the conservative media for years.  That won't come easy.  For example, mention reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and their head practically explode.  You'd think that having to argue against something that requires honest reporting and balanced views would smash their cognitive dissonance about the "truthfulness" of conservative media, but it doesn't.  To anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking skills, having to argue against a regulation that requires honesty and balance would seemingly instantly point out you're not getting honest, balanced reporting.

        Or wait until enough of them die off of natural causes so they no longer can win many elections since their key demographics are getting older and older and smaller and smaller.  However, they know this demographic shift is coming as well - which is another reason why they are seemingly so over the top.

        •  Reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, Darth Stateworker

          as a Bill with the same language as 1986 makes sense.

          Push it every session.

          Reagan vetoed that Bill in 1986 and he certainly knew what he was unleashing in the way of hate speech.


          •  Fairness Doctrine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Enacted in 1949, successfully kept America reliably liberal and Democratic, except 1952-60, 1970-78, and 1981-87, i.e. 22 out of 38 years. Should make a huge difference.

            What conservative commentators do you think MSNBC will hire? How much more coverage will they be required to give Mr. Issa?

            •  It isn't about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chitown Kev, Zinman

              "keeping America liberal."

              It's about keeping the electorate informed, not full of the bullshit spewed by todays conservabubble.

              •  I think you misconstrue the Fairness Doctrine, (0+ / 0-)

                thinking that it insured "honest reporting and balanced views."
                In practice, it had little to do with requirements of accuracy or neutrality, and a lot to do with guaranteeing presentation of divergent, opposing views. Basically, you'd be plumping for giving anti-Maddows a platform on MSNBC and anti-Limbaughs a place next to his programs.

                Would any of this have the slightest practical effect on the electorate? IMO, extremely doubtful.

    •  it's true; the only way they win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Stateworker

      is if all us (left or right) who vote for the dems


      otherwise we all know about the demographic trends...

  •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You accurately describe the method with which liberals and conservatives engage. However, you don't get any deeper and ask "why".
       I tried to do that here. I could be wrong, but it was an attempt.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:56:21 AM PST

    •  i went to your diary gjohnsit (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage, gjohnsit, mkor7, Hirodog

      i liked it a lot, despair being something i deal with in regard to my view of the state of the nation since wwii

      the difference between those like me and those on the right is our empathy for those who aren't able to live the american dream

      we identify with them and seek to rectify the causes of inequality, the inequity

      but the right's despair turns to disconnection, enabling hatred and violence

  •  Precisely. Conservatives angrily deny... (7+ / 0-)

    the very legitimacy of any opinion not matching their own. Their response to doubts about Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck was not to debate the merits of invading a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, but to slander the patriotism of anyone not on-board with invasion.

    Just go to any conservative blog or website and check the comments; they'll be chock full of enraged insistence that Libruls need a "second amendment solution".

    You know. As in, "shoot 'em".

    •  However (4+ / 0-)

      on the rare instance a liberal gets fed up, frustrated, and in that frustration, makes a comment like "someone should slap some sense into you" or something, they go into a tizzy about how "violent" liberals are.

      It sure is funny how much they love to play the martyr/victim.  I guess that's their best play, because 99.99999999% of them can't or won't debate the merits of an issue using all available facts and logic.  Sure, they may cherry pick a fact or two if it reinforces their belief, but they'll still ignore any mitigating facts that would cause a different or nuanced conclusion.

      Additionally I swear many of them troll simply for the sake of trolling liberals and trying to piss us off just for kicks - like you'd expect from a teenager in a Call of Duty chatroom, because in many cases, the comments they make just seem that juvenile and outlandish.

  •  Question (8+ / 0-)

    I'm confused by what you mean by "in their original incarnations." Are you referring to the French Revolution, from which we get the "left-right" terminology? If so, although I agree with you about the openness vs. resistance to change dynamic, I think there's much left out.

    Conservatism focuses on maintaining traditional institutions (or an idealized version thereof) and upholding the hierarchies within them: the employer over the company and the father over the family and the power of the military, the church, and the executive (as opposed to the legislature) over the affairs of society. There are branches of the tree of conservatism that veer from this in some way or another, but this is a general outline.

    Liberalism has referred to the belief in eliminating "irrational" privilege in society and using the tools of reason to manage the affairs of society and gradually improve the human lot. Whereas conservatism believes in the dominance of social institutions over individuals, liberalism believes in the primacy of the individual's self-determination. Social liberalism (what we now call "modern liberalism") arose when liberals realized that the individual could not be viewed atomistically and that the community organized (i.e. the state) had a role to play in enabling the individual to achieve such self-determination (i.e. "positive freedom").

  •  Neo-Conservatism actually is revolutionary (4+ / 0-)

    You identify the paradox of the discourse between the Left and the Right in today's society. The Left is still playing by the social and intellectual rules of a bygone, pre-revolutionary period where an argument or issue was debated but the Right is actually composed of reactionaries, they revolutionary and only give credence for those within their revolutionary ideology.

    Geo Mosse wrote about in his last essays that he titled Fascist Revolution, though what is important is that he pointed out that a revolution (radical reordering of society) can be either from the Left or the Right. That Right revolutions take place in democracies or republic form of governments where the a middle class is being destroyed by economic and social forces.

    That the Right is looking back to a mythological time of a society, looking for some ideal place that will reestablish their social status.  

    What I hear is a conflation of the urban centric from rural to ex urban middle age to senior whites, those who kept fleeing or white flight, first out of the major cities then to the suburbs and now to ex-urban areas.

    Revolutionaries do not have any empathy or respect for anyone outside their world that does not want to radically reorder society in their vision.

    It is also based in a consumer-civic duty, meaning there is no civic duty as in what is in it for me.

    I have had conservative acquaintances and friends who no longer talk to me or other former close friends because they cannot stand that we do not see the world as they do. The last straw on one was a trust baby (as he inherited $$ late in life) but called during Christmas break about me having 2 weeks off because of public education. He then said I was agent of the enemy....

    But here is news, they are losing. They don't votes and those that they have are dying faster than those coming on.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty~Ben Franklin

    by RWN on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:16:14 PM PST

    •  They like the Confederacy. (0+ / 0-)


      Some of them want their slaves back. Property rights.... Descendents will do.

      We're within range of winning Georgia over to a left-center coalition. Places like Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't even close any more.

      We turn Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina and the presidential game is simply over. Point comes where Obamacare has 25,000,000 insurees, those three states are immediate battleground spoils.

      Poor Republicans are going to get hard to find.

      And there's nothing they can do about it.

  •  A facile point. (4+ / 0-)

    I have found the difference is that progressives (I'll use that term for these purposes) argue their point from reason, facts, evidence, proof, reality whereas conservative argue from feelings.
    My brother in law speaks to how Reagan made the country feel like winners and strong people after feeling like losers and military wimps under Carter.  My cousin says it feels like government regulations feel like tyranny on her back and unions feel like they make unreasonable demands.

    Government works when you elect those who want it to. --askyron (2013)

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:35:06 PM PST

    •  "Straight Line" persuasion system. (0+ / 0-)

      That's their basic tool, carried over from the 80s/90s versions. The Reagan fantasy is typical.

      He had no idea what he was doing. No temperament for talking through problems and getting advice from a range of experts.

      "Feel like winners" is about right. It was all PR.

  •  While the ferocity differs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the meanings are the same.  While the Right will be very explicit in how they want me to die, the Left will attempt to seem 'educated' while wishing harm, such as 'perhaps it would be better if you ignored the roadsigns up ahead, warning that the bridge has washed away..'

    In the end, there's no difference.  Peas in a pod.  The Democratic Underground is a perfect example of two opposite trains heading in the same direction.  Once, a poster flat out said that my family and I should just die, in FOX terminology, and a random 'jury' all voted to let that FOX terminology stand.  Unbelievable.  I'd show the posts, but they banned me for not toeing the Snowden/Greenwald line.  Just like on a Rightwing blog, they will silence your point of view if it doesn't fit the meme.

    Its good to be Independent.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 01:58:37 PM PST

  •  CONS VS. PROS... (6+ / 0-)

    Conservatives let Liberals better their lives while THEY sit around complaining. I cannot think of ONE THING conservatism or a conservatives, as a whole, have contributed to this country.. Liberals: forty-hour work week, paid vacation, sick leave, minimum wage, maternity leave, Medicare/ Medicaid, Soc. Sec., the internet, Social networking, etc.. EVERY SINGLE technological or social advancement in the history of this country was pushed by LIBERALS.. conservatives all just ”stand astride the course of destiny & yell ”HALT”.

    I don't engage Cons in discussions, because they do not discuss…in my experience. They just repeat the same point louder and louder or speak 'word salad' till you give up.

    It is a constant wonder to me - how nearly half of our fellow citizens can be so deluded and brain-washed by the right. My own sister is amazingly 'blinded-by-the-right' - and we come from a 'blue-collar' working class family. My father was a union steward and came up from hard-scrabble farm people in PA. He couldn't understand his second daughter, at all.

    “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson

    by starduster on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 02:06:18 PM PST

    •  They gave us Donald Trump. Tom DeLay. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Newt Gingrich.

      Ronald Reagan.

      Voting down Obamacare in the House forty times.

      Funny people.

    •  Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the autonomist

      Was Clay's American System idea of federal support for infrastructure, like roads, right wing or left wing? Was Andrew Jackson's opposition to the Bank of the United States reactionary or progressive?

      Clay was looking more to the future and Jackson backwards to the agrarian past. In other policy areas, Jackson was promoting a more egalitarian society (for white Americans at least). Clay was promoting a more capitalist, business oriented economy.

      It is not so easy to disentangle the mixture of liberalism and conservatism, which affected US politics in the first half of the nineteenth century.

      There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

      by Gary J on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:57:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's different everywhere. (5+ / 0-)

    I live in CT in Fairfield county.  I know lots of republicans.  Most of them are primarily fiscal conservatives and generally socially liberal in a typical New England way.  I wouldn't believe for a second that any of them I know want me or any liberal to die because we disagree about politics.  In fact, we debate the issues all the time.

    From my own experience, the most hateful comments come from people who listen to the most hateful influencers, primarily talk radio and FoxNews or from the least educated or ideologically driven.

    The worst case nutjob GOPer I know of was fond of writing LTE's every single week in our local paper repeating Fox nonsense in the lead up to the 2008 election.  He was also the head of the Republican Town Committee.   His letters sounded like a grumpy old man who was angry about how things were changing.  When i found out he was in his mid-thirties I was shocked.  I mentioned what my first impression was to someone who knew him.  She decided to tell him what i said (without telling him it was me).  He was embarrassed to the point that he wrote a LTE to apologize to the community.

    He's also on our town board of finance and our teen center (of which I am on the board) relies on their good will for part of our funding.  So when our new executive director started, the first thing he did was reach out to this guy to find common ground and figure out what made him tick.  It was simple, he wanted to feel that we listened to him and took him seriously.  So we did.  Now he's one of our biggest allies.   He doesn't always agree, but we always find a way to move forward without hurting the teen center and last budget season, when we needed a bump in funding, he stood by us.

    I don't know if that happens in other parts of the country, but I find it hard to believe that it doesn't somewhere.

    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

    by Back In Blue on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 03:54:59 PM PST

    •  You've never been to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waterstreet2013, Jasonhouse

      [fill in the blank of a deeply red state here] have you?

      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

      by Steven D on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:45:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure I have. (4+ / 0-)

        I was once a touring musician and I've played, stayed or traveled through every state in the country except MT, ID, AK, HI.   I've run into all kinds of people, the vast majority were decent, kind people.  I've also run into complete assholes and some who put my life in danger. I've run into just about every stereotype that exists in this country:

        - I was threatened and pursued by a band of "rednecks" in North Carolina because we were from NY.  
        - I had a checkout clerk at a Piggly Wiggly in Alabama literally say "ya'll not from around here are ye." That's not a question.  I was naive enough to tell her we were from NY to which she replied, "you best be movin' on, now."
        - I met some kids out behind the club we played on Beale St. in Memphis who really liked our music, which had a fairly obvious progressive sensibility, especially lyrically, turn around a complain about the fucking "black people" up the road playing what sounded likes some killer r&b I wanted to check out.  That one floored me particularly because I couldn't understand how someone who liked our music could be such a racist asshole, especially because we had a Colombian singer who was very dark in complexion and most people thought he was black.
        - I had some "progressive" folks in Madison Wisconsin attempt to "keep us around for a while" in their guest room in the basement.  We didn't get out until our bandmates came looking for us.
        - I was sexually assaulted in the middle of the night by a drunk,  homophobic asshole in Jackson Mississippi who had been insisting I was gay (I had long hair) and though I looked pretty.  Let's just say we left before he sobered up.
        - There was the cop outside the club in Little Rock who when I asked where the nearest ATM was, he said it's about three blocks that way. Then, after realizing I wasn't from around there ask, "where you from, boy?" to which I replied, New York and he then said "oh heck, you can head that way (the complete opposite direction) about a block.  It's a little dicey but I'm sure it's nothing to a big city boy like you."  Still don't know if he meant it as a compliment or was hoping I'd run into trouble.  There was nothing I could tell that was any different from where we were at the club.
        - I met a college friend of a bandmate in Houston who started in on the racist shit 30 seconds after we met him. That was fun.
        - There were the nazi's in the hotel room next to us in Arizona (swastika flags and german helmets).

        I could go on for a long time, but I would venture that none of these assholes ever voted once in their life or were aligned with either dems or republicans. They're just racist assholes.  Sure, we met plenty of other folks who do vote and are probably conservative, but I met far more people of all stripes, some who expressed their views on certain things but rarely did it become hostile.

        Of course, that was 15 years ago or more.  Things have changed quite a bit since then...

        The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

        by Back In Blue on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:32:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, O.K. ......... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, mkor7, Back In Blue

          "Of course, that was 15 years ago or more.  Things have changed quite a bit since then..."

          They went out and bought a dozen guns each.

          And 7,000 rounds of ammo.

          Paranoia has been elevated to the #1 mental state for hard-core race-hate "conservatives."

        •  I'm in Tampa and at least around here... (0+ / 0-)

          ... the racist assholes are Republicans. I can't think of a single racist who is a Dem.

          And btw I'm not a Dem, I'm IND. Former Republican, but that's because I'm from up north, where many Republicans are ideologically equivalent to what is considered a mainline Dem in the south. lol

  •  Thank You - N/T (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

    by linkage on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:59:35 PM PST

  •  I know all about it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hirodog, organicus, Jasonhouse

    I no longer have any conservative friend one by one they turned nasty and left and not just people I knew but even my wife friends one girl in particle stand out as she had been a long time friend of my wife. and a good friend who had been in our wedding had wept when we lost a child, until Obama got elected after that she became a real tea-bagger and what turned her against my wife was a meeting that we had been invited to with then Senator Arlen Specter when he was switching party and looking for support from us Democrats. She was out in front with a big sign all about how Obama had raised her taxes ( He didn't but she would never believe it) She saw us go in and from then on it was pure hate. I guess hate beats friendship.

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 05:05:50 AM PST

  •  wow... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfcord've managed to articulate something I've often thought, or tried to reason thru', simply and powerfully.  My brothers are painfully conservative, but because they love me they actually do try to reason with me on occasion.  The only problem is that so much of what passes for argument with them are things I recognize as right-wing talking points.  The only thing I seem to be able to do in return is talk from my own experience - which is anecdote, not evidence, but seems to have more of an effect on them than evidence does.

    As for accordions, I hope, wherever he is, he has something better to do with his time. - Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

    by Miss Bianca on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:11:03 AM PST

  •  It's not left vs right anymore... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... It's an existential culture war between those who used to be in charge by default, and those who embrace the greatness of a more diverse society.

  •  In every moment of every day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    one has only two choices. Act out of love or fear. Conservatives always choose fear. At the lowest level that is the difference.

    Join the War on Thinking. Watch Fox News- John Lucas

    by Jlukes on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:31:31 PM PST

  •  Beyond modern "liberal vs. conservative": (0+ / 0-)

    Years ago, a job was a function of the family.

    Today, the family is a function of a job.

    Essentially, the government of the United States of America re-authorized slavery without that nasty "race" gambit.

  •  I don't know, but maybe it's time (0+ / 0-)

    we began commenting on a regular basis about the similarity of today's "conservative movement" to the far right of the 30s and 40s. It's hard because (a) we kind of burned out on calling our political enemies "fascists" during the sixties and seventies and (b) the far right loudly equates liberals with Nazis, and who wants to be like that? But-- along with beatings, racism, virulent xenophobia, etc-- death threats overt and implied are part of the basic fascist toolbox.

    Projection is the psychologist's term for looking at somebody else and seeing some part of yourself that you don't wish to acknowledge.

    These guys seem to use projection as a kind of weapon. But we should not let that keep us from seeing and naming what they are, which is: increasingly fascistic.

  •  interesting diary. thanks for it. tip'd & rec'd. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site