Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Steve Inskeep asks "conservative intellectual" Yuval Levin why he has written a book that argues modern liberalism is a conservative position and why modern conservatives are batshiat insane; let's see if he notices   (npr.org) divider line 9
    More: Ironic, Yuval Levin, Steve Inskeep, modern liberalism, Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, intellectuals, posters, Morning Edition  
•       •       •

2127 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 9:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-12-03 09:53:02 AM  
4 votes:
I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.
2013-12-03 12:04:25 PM  
2 votes:

DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.


The GOP has invested a lot into radicals. It has done this for some time. NeoCons got in with Reagan, and they immediately realized that they could NOT keep up the momentum without securing the means to production. In their case, without having journals, magazines, and think tanks to continue the push. They invested heavily into publishing, and into media, and THAT, coupled with an alliance with the Religious Right, they've turned the party--and are keeping the party--from turning back from the precipice of radicalism.

It's NOT Conservatism, which the GOP is campaigning with. Calling it that is part of the process that the NeoCons have engaged in, by redefining terms. It is an Ivory Tower approach to governance, and that has always been my issue with the NeoCons, is that they are Ivory Tower types who think that games theory and a willful misreading of the concept of subjective reality can make for public policy. And we're reaping the "benefit" of this intellectual dishonesty at this point. I will give them credit for selling it well though to their target audience. They have sold the sad fact, that the NeoCons were relegated to the kiddie table for years, and have transformed their position of being the radical fringe, and redefined terms so well in the public mind, that folks tend to forget that Republicans used to stand with labor, used to stand for rights for minorities, and even environmentalism. And the party itself has forgotten that as well. Well, much of the rank and file at least.

The GOP is NOT a Conservative party in the least--or rather, the bulk of the party is backing folks who are radicals who wish to tear down the establishment. Mind you, I understand the rage that is fueling the efforts. Years of watching jobs flee, watching an increased intrusiveness by the government, and a shift in public policy that has decreased savings, flushed retirements, and the problem is, that the very folks who have been championing these shifts, have to keep the rubes looking far and away from the folks who engineered this. The ACA is an example. It was originally a Republican idea, and implemented in Massachusetts first as the pilot program, and signed into law by Mitt Romney. Yet, now folks rage on about it as the worstestest thing EVAR. Despite being their own idea. US PATRIOT was signed into law with resounding support, and now folks are realizing it was maybe not such a great thing, and NOW that the powers are exercised by a Democrat, it's a horrible, no good, bad idea. Let's not even get into the undercutting of liability, bailing out banks, softening the regulations on exchanges and the like. The track record has been to point fingers AFTER support, and ignore the fact that they have been the authors of the very issues that they're pointing fingers at. The rage is real, and even understandable. What is amazing, is that the GOP is using it, and keeping folks pointed away from the policies that they've advocated and authored, and doing ANYTHING and saying ANYTHING to keep folks from looking closer.

Look at the recent flap with the embassy moving in Rome. Big story about how the Administration is cutting ties with the Vatican. Despite the fact that the embassy is actually moving closer. The flap was made, the accusations fly, and even when proven false, the issue has already done its damage by painting a narrative. And THAT is really the issue that I have with the NeoCons and their ilk: they have invested the bulk of the party into narrative not policy. So long as the story sounds good, then the policies themselves don't matter. They can vote for policies that are against long held Republican values, but so long as they can spin the story, that doesn't matter. Civil rights? They can campaign on the long term record, while voting to strip those rights and keep the "wrong" people from having them. You know. For kids. And freedom. And against socialisms. The problem with the NeoCons has always been that they have been not grounded in firm policy, but rather coming up with justifications for policy. Their investiture into a misreading and willful misunderstanding of subjective reality as a basis for philosophy means that they are committed to simply massaging the messaging, without having to change policy. It is intellectually dishonest, and it opens the door for a LOT of misconduct and malfeasance, which is perhaps why so many folks support their platform, because they realize that they can get away with murder, and be lauded for it.

And it's NOT Conservative in the least. It's a bunch of marginalized radicals who finally got their shot, and now they're rewriting history to make themselves out to be the heroes. And it's working as education is gutted, as the media is defanged. But let's not call it Conservatism: it's revenge porn writ large on the public for marginalizing folks who think that Ayn Rand was a hero because she intellectually fellated folks when hating Commies was more important than anything else.
2013-12-03 10:22:35 AM  
2 votes:

DarnoKonrad: I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating


I think it's a bit of both.  Or as Upton sinclair put it:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Those  "think tanks" and the conservative lecture circuit pay quite well as long as you say the things that they want to hear.  My guess is that what starts out as just a little embellishment to gain  attention turns into full fledged belief once their fame and fortune depends on it.

IOW, they know that they are bullshiatting, but come to believe their own bullshiat.
2013-12-03 09:38:39 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: I listened to this on the way in this morning.  It concentrated on Edmund Burke, and ignored Thomas Paine for the most part.  It did  mention that Thomas Paine was a big advocate of the French Revolution, they kind of skipped the part about him very nearly being executed by the Montagnards, with a simple quirk of fate that saved his life.

Now, I have a copy of both Common Sense and The American Crisis on my bookshelf, wedged between the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers*, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville, and if you were to categorize me, I'd probably lean more towards conservative, at least in the sense of "limited government".  Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.  Today, I guess that is more along the lines of "small L" libertarianism, with the appellation of "liberal" being hijacked sometime in the last 100 years by the progressives.


*I sometimes wonder why the Federalist Papers are accorded more weight in jurisprudence then the Anti-Federalist papers:  The whole reason the Bill of Rights was adopted was to ease the fears of the Anti-Federalists who were rightly afraid of an all-powerful central government.  Seems to me to be a significant reason to pay attention to them.



Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

That's generally why I don't think broad generalizations about political belief fit into neat historical narratives -- I'd say Mr. Levin here is trying to contort history to his own idealized mythology.

Since Reagan, conservatives have been anything but prudent.  They've been on a radical campaign to redefine society, politics, and economics -- often blindly in the pursuit of ideology rather than effectiveness.
2013-12-03 08:38:33 AM  
2 votes:
I listened to this on the way in this morning.  It concentrated on Edmund Burke, and ignored Thomas Paine for the most part.  It did  mention that Thomas Paine was a big advocate of the French Revolution, they kind of skipped the part about him very nearly being executed by the Montagnards, with a simple quirk of fate that saved his life.

Now, I have a copy of both Common Sense and The American Crisis on my bookshelf, wedged between the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers*, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville, and if you were to categorize me, I'd probably lean more towards conservative, at least in the sense of "limited government".  Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.  Today, I guess that is more along the lines of "small L" libertarianism, with the appellation of "liberal" being hijacked sometime in the last 100 years by the progressives.


*I sometimes wonder why the Federalist Papers are accorded more weight in jurisprudence then the Anti-Federalist papers:  The whole reason the Bill of Rights was adopted was to ease the fears of the Anti-Federalists who were rightly afraid of an all-powerful central government.  Seems to me to be a significant reason to pay attention to them.
2013-12-03 10:40:24 AM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.


"Liberal" (in the classical sense) meant generous. As in, generous to the the poor. As in, generous in ensuring a good education for all. Not giving a flying fark about something as long as it doesn't affect you is not liberal in any classical sense. It's isolationist.
2013-12-03 10:33:38 AM  
1 votes:

uh_clem: DarnoKonrad: I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating

I think it's a bit of both.  Or as Upton sinclair put it:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Those  "think tanks" and the conservative lecture circuit pay quite well as long as you say the things that they want to hear.  My guess is that what starts out as just a little embellishment to gain  attention turns into full fledged belief once their fame and fortune depends on it.

IOW, they know that they are bullshiatting, but come to believe their own bullshiat.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reali ty -based-community/
2013-12-03 10:14:20 AM  
1 votes:

DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.


I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse
2013-12-03 09:58:06 AM  
1 votes:

DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.



I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report