I know… OK, actually, I know depressingly few liberals who don’t engage in tedious personal attacks against Republican politicians. Then again, I know depressingly few conservatives who don’t make sweeping generalizations about liberals. Being in academia, the effect is just as noticable - like clockwork, every week or so someone on Townhall writes the obligatory column about how academia is destroying America.

The problem isn’t that liberals are hateful. It’s that the entire political discourse in America has degenerated to partisan politics, viciousness, and hate. The left calls Bush a deserter, the right calls Kerry a traitor, and soon enough everyone is too mad at one another to get anything done. But the problem exists squarely on both sides of the fence.

Also, I went to look at the NYT coverage you described, and was unable to find it. Which article from 9/12/01 were you referring to? (The closest I could find was one on page 5, which did not seem particularly anti-Bush - a documentation of what he did on 9/11, but this is certainly information in the public interest, and I would be puzzled by any news source that didn’t cover it.)

It is very fashionable and nonjudgmental to say that whatever sins exist in American politics exist equally on both sides, but there are some pretty obvious asymmetries. It occurred to me while reading “A Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell (probably because it was explicitly stated, but I cannot recall) that the fundamental differences in the conservative and utopian (a.k.a. liberal) views of human nature lead to a definite asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives view each other.

Because conservatives believe that human nature includes much willfulness and is subject to corruption by power, they do not believe that utopian remakings of society will work, and that further corruption of human beings will be the unintended consequence. As a result, they see liberals as misguided, but generally by naivete and lack of proper understanding of humna nature and the limits of what governments can accomplish. Thinking your liberal neighbor is naive does not lead you to hate him.

Liberals think that their programs will work, that it is obvious that they will work, and cannot comprehend why anyone would not agree. Thus, when they propose a certain program to “benefit the poor” (or the aged, or the children, or whomever) and conservatives oppose it as unworkable and more likely to do harm than good, they cannot believe that this is really the thinking of conservatives. Instead, it must be that conservatives don’t really care about the poor, or the aged, or whomever. They are uncompassionate and merely pretending to object to these programs for other reasons. Secretly, they are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and that is the REAL reason they don’t like liberal programs. Thus, it is quite natural for the liberal to look upon his conservative neighbor with contempt or hatred, which is NOT the same as merely shaking your head and looking upon your liberal neighbor as naive or politically utopian and unrealistic.

For brevity, I will omit discussion of how people view liberal and conservative politicians rather than neighbors. Perhaps in another post …

Which would all be well and good if the view were that the liberal were simply naive or wrongheaded. However, the rhetoric goes quite a bit further than that - they are godless, treasonous, and bent on destroying the entirety of civilization.

I also think that, increasingly, the hatred stems from something far deeper than mere philosophic or policy differences. Consider how it fixates not on issues, but on personality - Bush’s war record, his intelligence, his corporate ties, Clinton’s sex scandals, Kerry’s patriotism, Kennedy’s corruption.

Consider also that the liberal/conservative dualism just doesn’t hold up terribly well. For one thing, think of the poor libertarians.

I don’t mean this to be non-judgmental. Quite the opposite, I mean it to be damning to all sides. To me, it really started becoming obstructive to the possibility of a functioning government somewhere in the Clinton impeachment - and I would be inclined to blame the left for it during that time. But at this point, all sides are equally guilty, and virtually no one in contemporary politics deserves to be.

Re the Times on Bush the week after the 9/11 attack, I don’t have citations, but they had at least three editorials during that period expressing acute outrage and disgust at Bush for his supposed failure as Commander and Chief immediately to return to Washington instead of waiting a few hours. Of course, this is the same newspaper which is ordinarily completely indifferent to all things military and national defense-related.

“at least three editorials” during “the week after the 9/11 attack” is pretty substantively different from it being their “first response,” as stated in your article - once the dust began to settle, the natural questions to arise were “what happened,” “could we have prevented it,” and “did the government respond effectively.” One of the jobs of the news media is to try to determine those things.

Then again, I’d largely discount the editorials - they’re opinion pieces, in which the political leanings of the paper are supposed to shine through…

It comes increasingly apparent that whatever the subject, Mr. Sandifer has nothing serious, thought-out, or worthwhile to say about anything, just trivial or smart alecky objections to what ever is said by others. I notice his address is at the University of Chicago. Is he perhaps … a sophomore?

No, I’m not. Try graduate student. With publications.

Though it also comes increasingly apparent that whatever the subject, Mr. Auster does not so much “engage opposing viewpoints” as write them off as not actual arguments.

I mean, what point are you shooting for here, Mr. Auster? The New York Times editorial board is liberal? I don’t think even they’d deny that.

My appetite for defending Bush, even against unjustified attacks, is rather limited. But it is worth noting the grotesque inconsistency of the liberals in excusing Clinton’s behavior during the war and their attacks on Bush. As for Bush: it is well-known that the Guard was a haven for people who did not want to go to Indochina. Nevertheless, it was a form of military service. And anyone who joined the Guard was taking a long chance. It was never likely that the Guard would be sent to Indochina, but it was a dead certainty that, if we got into another war or a major crisis while the Indochina war was raging, the Guard would be mobilized. It is a dirty little secret that the really certain “out” during the war, for upper and middle class people was not the Guard, or even college deferments, but phony medical exemptions.

As I discuss on my blog—speaking of consistency—why does no one ask if Kerry joined the Navy to avoid Vietnam? The Navy was far less likely to see frontline combat in ‘Nam than the Army or Marines.

Quite honestly, this topic likely will not influence anyone’s vote as things that happened to Kerry and Bush 30 years ago will not weigh heavily in the mind of swing voters. My comment on the issue is that if we are voting based on character and not policy, then it does matter if it can be shown that behavior from 30 years ago is consistent to the present.
You accuse liberals of having a double standard when quite clearly, you refuse to see how Bush’s national guard record might be an issue from a moral standpoint.
An additional problem is that if it did not hit the media, Bush likely would not have turned over the records.
As for Clinton in the war, he wrote quite a long letter on his reasons for avoiding the draft for political reasons. Though it does not excuse the behavior, I do like that he had a reason to do so other than not wanting to die.
I don’t excuse Clinton, nor Bush. Are you asking us to excuse Bush? Perhaps you should examine if America has learned from its mistakes…if you would attack Clinton, you should attack Bush equally for draft dodging.

Mr. Auster, this post sounds suspiciously like Ann Coulter in its sweeping generalizations and conclusions. Perhaps you would like to engage Mr. Sandifer on what he actually says as your original post has nothing particularly
“serious, thought-out, or worthwhile to say about anything, just trivial or smart alecky objections” that were obvious to the choir to begin with. Instead of trying to undermine his credibility with trivial statements on where they came from, try engaging his words instead of dismissing them out of hand as you have been wont to do.
Perhaps you should also change your post title to “I hate liberals” as you’re insinuating that Kerry has committed treason by speaking against involvement in Vietnam, a very serious charge.

If you want another instance of where the media went overboard, I’ll mention Howard Dean’s “I have a scream” speech. The only reason the scream was so loud was because of the microphone he was using at the time. His live audience did not really notice anything when he “screamed.”
Fox news and CBS, I believe, apologized after the fact for too overcovering the event, but by then it was too late for Dean. Since Bush is the sitting president, the media definitely would go after him more than Kerry as he currently has the reins of power.

(though personally I do not feel this issue should even be in the news to the extent it has, Bush is the embodiment of a president that ran on character issues…as a servant of the people, complying earlier by releasing records might have solved his current image problem in the news. he also keeps a level of secrecy unlike any president in decades, which would lead to the conclusion by many that he has something to hide.)

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The poster with no name makes one untruthful statement after another. I will take them apart one by one. I do this not for the sake of the unnamed poster, whom I consider a typical hopelessly partisan, dishonest and illogical liberal, but for the sake of others who may profit from reading this.

The unnamed one writes:

“You accuse liberals of having a double standard when quite clearly, you refuse to see how Bush’s national guard record might be an issue from a moral standpoint.”

I’ve said nothing of the kind. If Bush had done something of a deeply dishonest or dishonorable nature that could be a legitimate issue. But the liberals are falsely trying to gin up mass belief in some misbehavior by Bush that is not supported by any facts.

“An additional problem is that if it did not hit the media, Bush likely would not have turned over the records.”

With a ridiculous comment like this, the poster shows a lack of intellectual good faith or a sheer inability to think. Of course Bush didn’t turn over records to the media prior to this hitting the media. It wasn’t an issue. He also hasn’t turned over records of girls he went out with before he got married. Perhaps if he was accused of some serious sexual misbehavior he would have to do that.

“As for Clinton in the war, he wrote quite a long letter on his reasons for avoiding the draft for political reasons. Though it does not excuse the behavior, I do like that he had a reason to do so other than not wanting to die.”

A truly stupid remark. Do you think anyone who avoided the draft said he did it because he didn’t want to die? People who avoided the draft did it because they didn’t believe in the war, and THEREFORE didn’t want to serve or risk their lives for something they didn’t believe in. I’ve never met ANYONE who avoided the draft who was a supporter of the war. I’ve never met ANYONE who served who didn’t believe in the war, at least prior to his going to the war.

“I don’t excuse Clinton, nor Bush. Are you asking us to excuse Bush? Perhaps you should examine if America has learned from its mistakes…if you would attack Clinton, you should attack Bush equally for draft dodging.”

The poster is suggesting an equivalence between the draft dodger Clinton (for whose draft dodging he finds some mitigating factors) and Bush who honorably served in the National Guard for five years. This particular attempt at moral equivalency is definitive proof of either pure illogic or pure partisanship, and disqualifies the poster from any serious consideration.

“Perhaps you should also change your post title to ‘I hate liberals’ as you’re insinuating that Kerry has committed treason by speaking against involvement in Vietnam, a very serious charge.”

Another deeply dishonest statement by the poster. Kerry did not merely “speak against involvement in Vietnam.” On the basis of zero evidence, he accused the U.S. armed forces of carrying out systematic continuing atrocities of the most horrific nature, with the knowledge and authority of officers of every rank. He called America a criminal outlaw country that by the very fact of fighting to protect Vietnam from Communist takeover had passed some threshold into evil. He expressed excoriating contempt for this country and for the armed forces. His statement to Congress in 1971 was the ne plus ultra of anti-Americanism. Yet this is what our poster describes innocuously as merely “speaking against involvement in Vietnam.”

Finally, the poster accuses me of using Coulter-like broadsides against liberals. I’m not a fan of Coulter’s, but you know what, pal? Sometimes Coulter-like broadsides against liberals are justified.

Also, if you do want to post here, you need to use a name, either your own name or a pen name that sounds like an actual human name by which people can address you. We are not alien beings or robots with names like @ or R2D2.

“… you should attack Bush equally for draft dodging.” One thing that gets really tiresome in politics today is the hyperbolic use of language. At one time, a “draft dodger” was someone who spent the war in a foreign country after they got drafted, or after they received a high draft number and the draft was about to be held. Now, every time someone’s military service is less than the front lines of the infantry, his political opponents refer to him as a draft dodger. If we are to communicate, words need to have a meaning that does not change from moment to moment based on partisan considerations.

Mr. Sandifer wrote: “Which would all be well and good if the view were that the liberal were simply naive or wrongheaded. However, the rhetoric goes quite a bit further than that - they are godless, treasonous, and bent on destroying the entirety of civilization.”

This is the discussion I omitted for conciseness: the liberal elite and politicians, as opposed to the liberal man on the street. I believe there is quite a huge gulf between them. The liberal man on the street is basically a fairly harmless sap who can be led to vote for whomever seems to be more on the side of certain shibboleths such as “compassion”, “fairness”, “equality”, and so on.

The liberal elite, meanwhile, believe things such as Hillary Rodham wrote years ago in a feminist journal, that anything done by the government to make it harder for people to get out of their marriage vows is analogous to the use of state power to put Indians on reservations, or to enforce slavery laws before the Civil War. Thus, anything less than easy no-fault divorce, even for couples with children, is an example of the state arbitrarily using its power to suppress individual liberty and autonomy.

The average liberal man in the street does not believe this nonsense, but the people he votes for do. I have tried (recently, more and more to no avail) to convince my fellow conservatives that when they say things like, “All liberals want to dissolve marriage and destroy the family”, they are talking based on their exposure to the liberal elite, and common liberals and “moderates” who have not studied the liberal elite will not understand what they are talking about and will be scared witless by conservatism from that point onward.

Yes, there is tremendous hostility towards the liberal elite, because they ARE conscious of what they are doing, even if their voting booth dupes are not. However, my original point still stands: the typical conservative does not view the typical liberal neighbor with hatred, but the typical liberal believes that the typical conservative citizen is a closet racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. This presents an asymmetry right from the start in political dialogue among non-elites, such as on this board. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to suddenly post on this board “I cannot believe what a bunch of racists (or other epithet) you people are on this board!”

Mr.Coleman is correct about the average liberals view of consevatives. I would bet the farm that there is not a conservative on this forum who has not had a liberal friend walk away from their relationship over politics, and all the more so when we were all college age.

But I gathered from Mr. Coleman that the liberal bias against conservatives is the conservatives’ fault, because the conservatives falsely attribute the radical beliefs of liberal elites to the regular liberals. Is he suggesting that if conservatives, instead of saying “liberals,” carefully said “literal elites” or some similar qualifying expression every time they attacked liberals, that liberals would dislike them less?

Whenever I see a lovely olive branch like that, bringing the moderate conservatives and moderate liberals together in the delicious harmony of sensible everyman, I feel like I am ready to MAMBO!

Thesis steeeeep to the left
Thesis steeeeep to the left
Grab antithesis on your right annnnnd
Step to the left…

Twirl around
Synthesize
Cha! Cha! Cha!

Annnnd step to the left…

“Hegel” is using the same dummy e-mail address used by our friend Matt, who coined “Hegelian mambo,” so it can be assumed that Hegel is none other than Matt.

Guilty as charged :-). I thought the trail of breadcrumbs would work.

Seriously, though, there are problems with trying to be ecumenical with moderate liberals. It _always_ ends up trending things further to the left. We need a counter-process, an Aristotlean Ballet or something.

I agree with Mr. Auster when he says that “Nothing Mr. Sandifer says amounts to much of anything”. Mr. Sandifer’s saying “Both parties do it, so all are to blame” is an old trick ussed by the left that is very long on tooth and doesn’t sway those of us on the other side. But I’m sure Mr. Sandifer is one of those people who would state that, even thought the Demos/liberals had control of the House of Representatives for 40 years straight, that it was somehow still the Republicans in the House were guilty of something.

Mr. Sandifer also seems to have left out the irrefutible that what Clinton did by allowing our supercomputer and missle technology to be sold by a huge Clinton donor (Loral) to the Red Chinese WAS “treason” (David Schippers had wanted Clinton to be impeached over those sales rather than anything Clinton had done with Monica). I’m not sure a vet just back from Vietnam marching against the country with Communist Jane Fonda is commiting treason. I DO know that a Senator or anyone having caused the death of an intern (isn’t it always the interns, poor things?) by driving drunk off a bridge is at the very least, womanslaughter and (he) should have been thrown out of the Senate. But, he is a Kennedy and Kennedys don’t get thrown out of ANY place. Bush’s military or Air National Guard record IS relevant information we should know about in a campaign, but so far, nothing seems to be sticking—not that I defend Bush on any of his policies.

Mr. Sandifer IS right about one thing—“the art of dirty politics” (a self-cancelling phrase, if there ever was one) has a home with both major parties. As for “the poor libertarians”, they will REMAIN a laughing stock and will never gain power NOT because this is a two-party system— but because of their continued ridiculous stands on illicit drug legalization and their weakness on border and immigration issues.

One question I want Mr. Sandifer to answer. What has been the political persuasion of those who go out in the streets and trash everything in site inthe past 40 years? Is it CONSERVATIVE whack jobs or right wing protesters who burn and trash and loot? Or is it always the Communist/leftist anarchists and the skanks that follow them with looting who continue to want to “bring it all down, man!”?

“But I gathered from Mr. Coleman that the liberal bias against conservatives is the conservatives’ fault, because the conservatives falsely attribute the radical beliefs of liberal elites to the regular liberals.” No, the BIAS against conservatives that is felt by the typical liberal man on the street is based on his false view of human nature and corresponding false views about what is desirable, and possible, for government to achieve. Mere bias can be hardened into something quite a bit more intransigent. For those who are pretty weakly committed, ideologically, to liberalism, and might be candidates for getting “mugged by reality” and having second thoughts at some point, it is not too helpful to tell them that they are “trying to destroy our country” and similar things. Being that many Americans pay little attention to politics and have little ideological fervor, there are many liberal voters (and non-voters!) who are just “compassion saps”.

Perhaps Mr. Hegel can explain why speaking differently of ideological liberal elites and the typical liberal citizen, when they are in fact different, is an example of the “Hegelian mambo.”

Let me just point out one or two other points of difference between Bush and Clinton. We knew with a dead certainty that with Bush in office we would never face a president committing adultery in office and then perjuring himself about it. Bush is simply an honest and honorable man (however misguided he is in wanting to be president of Mexico). As Steve Sailer has pointed out, fighter pilots, of whom Bush was one, have a nearly 25% career death rate, in PEACETIME. Pilots are also not given responsibilty for lives and millions of dollars worth of airplane, not to mention the country’s defense, based on who their fathers are; they must be as skilled, intelligent, and diligent as it is possible to be. Much the same considerations apply to a Harvard MBA: they are not given away to sons of donors or alumni, but, jealous as Harvard Business School is of its reputation, must definitely be earned. Yet how many times have we heard the theme repeatedly played in the media that Bush is an idiot? Gore was one of the dimmest bulbs around, dropping out of both divinity and law school and scoring in the bottom fifth of his class at Harvard. (Thanks to Ann Coulter for that information.) The point is the double standard routinely used by liberals, whether its Bush-Gore or Bush-Kerry. And BTW, since when did the left put such a high value on military service anyway?

“And BTW, since when did the left put such a high value on military service anyway?”

The value they put on it is purely and solely a function of its present capacity of being used as a weapon against the man they love to hate. They cheer lustily each of Kerry’s mentions of his military service, because they see it as hurting Bush.

This weird phenomenon, this hypocrisy to the nth degree, is in psychological terms simply the latest installment of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Whatever is seen in a given moment of time as advancing the cause of leftism, is good and wonderful and sacred.

If we traditionalists know what the liberal elites believe, so does the average liberal. Conservatives know what Bush believes.

But, Mr. Murgos, do the regular liberals really know what the liberal elites are about? There is definitely something to what Mr. Coleman is saying. There are a vast number of liberals who to this day only see liberalism in the most innocuous terms, as the protection of rights, the guarding against intolerance, the provision of society’s basic needs. They see all liberal phenomena through that hazy light, and so when they hear conservatives denounce liberalism per se as radical, evil, lying, and destructive, they automatically assume that the conservatives are extremists.

The way that liberalism has become radicalized even while maintaining an image of itself as “mainstream,” is one of the most significant aspects of modern liberalism and a key to its continuing viability and power. Yet it has barely been written about. There is a brief section in Erasing America where I talk about it.

I agree with you Mr. Auster. I would have been a little nearer the truth if I had said the average liberal does not understand the implications of the ideas the liberal elites espouse.

First: Mr. Coleman’s basic point about differences between elites and the man on the street are valid.

He wrote:
“Perhaps Mr. Hegel can explain why speaking differently of ideological liberal elites and the typical liberal citizen, when they are in fact different, is an example of the “Hegelian mambo.””

Simply speaking about them, no. Reaching out to the man on the street liberal, trying to appear not-extremist, yes. He is firmly in the grasp of liberal ideology, which is in fact an evil abomination; taking his hand will only get us dragged further leftward, in my opinion, unless there is something else present to prevent that from occurring. The same thing happens with religious ecumenism.

There is no watering down the fact that liberal modernism is an ideological abomination, an abomination that unleashed unprecedented slaughter on the world in the last century - slaughter that continues today - and yet that still dominates all public discourse and most private political thought in the first world, to the extent that it is busily and successfully carrying out the suicide of the West. The only reasonable position to take against liberal modernism is an extremist one: in a world dominated by extremism, reasonable is way out there.

So yes, I think olive branches proferred in order that we not be perceived as extremists will simply perpetuate the Mambo. Look at National Review as an example. Surely some of the folks over there are not closet leftists or radical right-liberals. It is just that it goes against the conservative disposition to take an extremist stand and be written out of the discussion.

The problem is that the only genuinely conservative options are very extremist relative to the present zeitgeist. We are stuck in a position in which in order to arrest the leftward march we have to do/say some pretty radical things, which goes against the natural conservative impulse.

Of course one radical thing for which the West does have a long tradition is the call to repent.

Matt, is the following your an accurate understanding of your position?

The problem in practice with “reaching out” to the average liberal is that one commonly accepts liberalism as the basis of discusion and proceeds to attempt to find “common ground” with him based on his unprincipled exceptions to liberalism or to attempt to convert him to differant variant of liberalism (e.g., libertarianism). Rather, in one’s dealings with “common liberals”, one should reject liberalism itself and attempt to convice one’s interlocuter of its wrongness. This position is extreme (i.e., outside of the political mainstream). However, it is the correct approach because it opposes the problem rather than compromising with it and because it will succeed with some people.

I agree with Matt and I think Joshua has accurately restated his position. I would agree with Mr. Coleman insofar as unnecessarily harsh attacks drive people away and don’t do any good. But at the same time I think the only way that traditionalists can exert any influence on contemporary liberal society is by taking an explicit, principled stand against liberalism, saying, “These beliefs are wrong, they’re dishonest, they’re false to the nature of things, and they lead ineluctably to ruin, and the only way for society to save itself is to turn away from this falsehood.” By taking such a stand, raising a standard to which the wise and honest may repair, we are attempting, no matter how modest the sphere in which we are acting, to exert leadership.

The refusal to compromise makes one sound extreme, but we are not living in the America of “Going My Way” (a fine movie I just saw tonight for the first time!), a society in which there is still enough virtue that a touch of gentleness and tact by the priest played by Bing Crosby, including his going along with popular manners so as not to frighten his people off, suffices to lead them to the right path. We’re not living in the America of 1944. We’re living in a continent sized Sodom. And the only way we can have any hope of helping our fellow citizens is to say to them in no uncertain terms, “This is Sodom.” Modern liberalism must be opposed, not compromised with in the slightest.

The comparison I make in the above comment in not terribly apt, as Crosby’s Fr. O’Malley is a priest leading people to the right path through the understated example of his own goodness and personal appeal, while we are speaking as citizens trying to influence the political and moral beliefs of our fellow citizens. But my main point holds. We’re in Sodom (which means not just the literal sin of Sodom, of course, but the entire audacious mentality that characterizes Sodom), and any gentle compromise with such evil will only strengthen the evil.

Joshua: yes, that restates my concern very well; thank you.

This thread has turned into an admission that it is a difference of philosophy and that there is little to discuss on the issue. Writing off entire arguments is academically irresponsible and dishonest, Mr. Auster.
Yet the natural result of a philosophy that ignores others leads to academic stagnation and the silencing of legitimate critics…at the very worst, dictatorial rule.
And Mr. Murgos, if you constantly have to take back or correct what you said in the first place…what is that called?

I guessed that some were reading into my comments some sort of willingness to compromise, which was not present in any way. In the few months that I have been on this board, I have noticed that whenever the discussion moves from philosophy to some form of success in the political arena, including persuading others who are not already traditionalist conservatives, there is this immediate presumption that one must be talking about “moving to the center” or some other sort of compromise.

You cannot persuade the committed leftist elites. You cannot persuade the liberal man in the street. You cannot persuade the country club Republicans, because they are just self-interested right-liberals who don’t accept the liberal label even though they are liberal. Ditto for the moderates and independent voters. Etc. Yet, these groups collectively outnumber traditionalist conservatives at least 5 to 1.

In summary, all those not already with us are beyond persuasion, unless they become more receptive to our radical statements, because the country falls apart even more disastrously than it already has. This is the approach of Lenin, who said that things must get worse before they can get better, which seems to be a popular sentiment in various conservative circles today. It sounds like a recipe for failure.

I don’t understand S’s point. Where in anything I’ve said is the suggestion that we shouldn’t speak to people, shouldn’t try to persuade them? What I’ve said is that we should make clear our uncompromising rejection of the current dominant liberalism. I also think Mr. Coleman’s suggestion is offbase that some of us are embracing a Leninist approach of “the worse, the better.” I don’t see how Mr. Coleman derives that from anything that I or others have said.

My point was simply that, the more extreme the rhetoric, the worse the situation has to be for a majority of people to accept it. Thus, a true but not too extreme statement such as: “These beliefs are wrong, they’re dishonest, they’re false to the nature of things, and they lead ineluctably to ruin, and the only way for society to save itself is to turn away from this falsehood” (from an earlier posting by Mr. Auster) depends only on someone realizing how bad many things already are in our society. Things don’t have to get any worse for someone to at least reasonably consider and discuss that statement with traditionalists, even if they don’t immediately agree. If we make more extreme statements than that, particularly if we focus on the evil motivations of leftists, then the average person will not believe the statement until things are even worse than they are today. As I would like to not reach that point, I prefer an approach that causes people to reconsider their political allegiances today.

Well, I for one don’t have any problem with Mr. Coleman’s latest formulation. It is certainly true that one must do what one can within the confines of one’s actual situation, and that taking on the appearance of a screaming banshee won’t be helpful toward that end even if a screaming banshee response happens to be a rational one.

I understand the recipe to be good judgement in communication without a nanometer of compromise on principle. If I understand that right, I agree without reservation (though I recognize that there will be differing opinions on what characterizes good judgement in communication).

Has this whole discussion come down to saying that we all agree that people shouldn’t behave like jerks? Then it seems like much ado about nothing.

While I do think we have reached approximate agreement, I don’t know that it was over nothing. I think there is the matter of whether we fixate on motivations and intentions when discussing politics. If I am talking in private with a fellow conservative, it can be profitable to understand our opponent better by talking about his motivations. If I am trying to discuss matters in public, it would be better to not focus on what I think the motives of the left are.

The line is blurred when discussing in a forum such as VFR, that is primarily a means of clarifying traditional conservatism amongst ourselves, but which also gets visitors from every segment of society, from committed leftists (who I doubt we will convert, so they are not my focus, and I think the less time wasted on them, the better) to fuzzy liberals to the “confused centrists” who have not put much thought into politics. I have seen it stated here that, as the effect of liberal policies is such and such, we might as well talk as if that is the premeditated intent of liberals, as there is no practical difference between intended and unintended consequences. There IS a moral difference, and we should not deliberately obscure the difference when talking directly to individual fuzzy liberals and confused centrists.

In another thread, I mentioned the left cutting off debate with cries of “Racist!” and so on. When some fuzzy liberal or right-liberal centrist wanders onto the site and posts what is the conventional liberal wisdom on some subject, and is greeted with charges that he wants to destroy Western civilization, how is that different from the tactics of the Left?

Well, I suppose I have done the sort of thing Mr. Coleman is criticizing. There was one poster recently named Frank (I can’t locate the thread) who said America was guilty for slavery and dispossessing the Indians, and so had no right to keep out immigrants. I said his position amounted to saying that America had no right to exist and preserve itself, and then I asked him if that was what he really believed and wanted. It could be said that I was reading an at least implicit intention into his statements, and that that is an ineffective way to argue.

One response I have to this is that people make statements the practical implications of which they have not considered, e.g., “we shouldn’t discriminate against anyone.” Now to me it’s apparent that such a position means open borders and the death of a society. By spelling out the implications, I’m attempting to force the other person to see where his supposedly benign position really leads. Some people consider that an illegimate way of arguing. But if we don’t do that, we remain on the surface of things, with the formal intentions and logic of our interlocutor remaining the focus, rather than the much more important question of where his way of thinking ultimately tends.

However, to have a proper discussion about the correct forms of debate, we would need to look at particular examples and ask whether one’s response in a given situation was correct or not. It’s difficult to discuss the problem as a generality.

I am not really critical of your response to Frank. I think it is safe to say that he does not fall into the fuzzy liberal or confused centrist categories. Stating that America has no right to protect itself, because of its past sins, pretty much puts one into the camp of the Leftists who are not going to be persuaded by anything we write on this board, don’t you think?

I am more concerned with the natural human tendency, which I see in myself, to get so fed up with the likes of Frank that I lose all patience when talking to some right-liberal who wanders onto the board the very next day and spouts something about being “compassionate” towards anyone who wants to immigrate here. The effect of the policy that he advocates is the same as the effect that Frank explicitly desires, so it is only with some effort that I can keep the two separate in my mind.

Here is the fullest account yet of Bush’s National Guard Service, by Byron York at NRO. He completely fulfilled his duties, and then some. As I said, the attack on him over this issue is simply your typical leftwing lie, the “Hate” of the week, or of the month. Yet Bush’ own inability to give an accounting of his service during his interview with Tim Russert shows how pathetically inarticulate and intellectually lazy he is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp