Objective Facts About Liberals And Conservatives*

When George Bush was president, liberals said the word "fuck."

Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama.

When George Bush was president, liberals said they hated him.

Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama - a 400% increase in threats against Obama compared to those against George Bush.

When George Bush was president, liberals photoshopped his face onto a chimpanzee.

Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama.

Now, conservatives take guns to meetings with Barack Obama and other politicians.

Now, conservatives talk about armed revolution.

Now, conservatives in uniform band together to conspire over the circumstances in which they would disobey their orders.

Now, conservative GOP politicians visit illegitimate governments and pledge their support to unelected dictators against the stated policy of the USA.  (Never mind, they've always done that.)

When George Bush was president, liberals were angry and let it show in their words and in organizing to defeat Republicans in special and regular elections all across the country.

Now, conservatives from the grassroots, to lunatics on TV to their top elected officials foment rebellion, spread fringe conspiracy rumors, stoke racist fires and, it must be said again and again,

threaten to assassinate the president of the United States of America and members of his administration

to the point that the Secret Service is entirely swamped, unable to deal with the avalanche of violence directed toward the legitimate government of America.

God damn all of them.

*I know that 'conservative' is a neutral word that doesn't necessarily imply that any person who is 'conservative' is a deranged, right-wing killer.  But that's the word they want for themselves, and there's precious few self-identified conservatives out there disputing the idea.

Comments

[kathy a.]

stephen, this stuff scares the shit out of me. it truly does. i'm old enough to remember JFK, RFK, and MLK, among other things.

but i do not think it is right or fair or helpful or accurate to lump everyone in with the lunatics who want to kill obama.

i have friends who describe themselves as conservative, but they are socially liberal in many ways. on the financial side, they want prudence -- but don't necessarily support the ongoing shift of wealth and power to the most wealthy.

what do we gain by throwing the baby out with the bathwater? i tend not to talk politics per se with these friends, but we talk about our lives, which is why i know we agree on quite a lot.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

10 months.

How, for the love of God, is your country going to survive four - or eight - whole years of this madness?

You would be so much better off if there was just some way to wave the South bye-bye. "You want your Confederacy - we'll give it to you, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

Give them freedom. Give them their own government based on all the principles they expouse. And watch them choke on it.

[kathy a.]

oh, the lunatics are not just in the south. and not all southerners are lunatics.

look, it really pisses me off to be branded a traitor and what-have-you because i don't believe some idiot's version of how things should be. that pissed me off a LOT during the last administration. and i do not think it make sense to use the same idiot tactics to alienate large swaths of the population who are not actual lunatics.

[kathy a.]

* makes sense

[Corvus9]

In it sad to say I am not surprised by all this. In part, that's because Stephen accurately pointed out sometime late last year (can't remember if it was before or after the election) that this kind of thing was about to come, and I took it to heart. (Remember our debate on how to deal with torture that ultimately hinged upon how crazy the Right was? Good times.)

I have to disagree with kathy a.'s reservations about Stephen's post. I have absolutely zero sympathy for any self-described conservatives. There are ultimately going to be only two political sides in this country; like it or not, that's just the way it's going to be. If you are more comfortable making your bed with those sociopaths, over the people whose "social" values you think you have, or pretend to have, then you deserve whatever stigma gets attached to you. Decides, whenever I hear someone described themselves as "conservative, but socially liberal", I translate that as "I think people of all elasticities, genders, and sexualities should be allowed to join together, and rape the poor." Such people are just as much a bunch of moral mutants as the participants at any Klan rally.

And fuck yeah to what PiatoR said about the South. You know, I have come to the conclusion lately that Sherman was awesome, and definitely right about the necessity of the March. The South is just so morally putrid, and on such a deep, widespread level, that total war really was the only way to go about winning that thing, and since the war was about ending slavery, winning it was a just end. Shit, a part of me would actually prefer they go with the opt-out public option to having it straight up. Maybe having to live with shit will wake those assholes up to how much they are just leaving themselves behind as the rest of the country enters the future.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

oh, the lunatics are not just in the south. and not all southerners are lunatics.

Of course not - but that's where the madness is concentrated. Wave bye-bye to the South, and give a grace period for the sane Southerners and wingnut Northerners to relocate.

The key point here is that we *know* precisely what would happen with any country that had these cretins running it unfettered. The nasty cynical side of me is saying that it would be good for the real US, the bit that's still worth admiring, to get rid of those toxic elements, and said toxic elements deserve precisely what they're asking for, good and proper.

[litbrit]

This discussion reminds me of the post-2004 election "proposed map of the New USA".

I'm in total agreement that there is a horrible divide in this country, but I live in Florida, and I don't want to go! Well, I'd go back to England, but damn, I just found the best apartment of my entire life and I'm just starting to feel settled and happy and bien dans ma peau for the first time in my 49 years (and one week and two days). Of course, St. Petersburg has turned into quite the under-the-radar mini-Seattle, with its teeming coffee bars, throngs of artists and musicians, and--in contrast to Conservative/Corporate Tampa--its love of and commitment to preserving its historical and beautiful old buildings and parks, instead of ripping them down or apart and building ugly fucking office park and megachurch after ugly fucking office park and megachurch.

Why won't the media talk about the threats to our president's life, though?

Why do they persist in perpetuating this "both sides are bad" BULLSHIT?

And what can we do?

For starters, I say we lefty bloggers keep calling them out, every single day. The way Roy, Driftglass, TBogg, The Sadlies, Amanda and gang, Pam and company, and many others do, every single day. And those we call out must include, if necessary, our acquaintances and friends who work at these so-called news organizations and, in whatever way, participate in the bullshit-disseminating. Only a small handful of journalists--and they're on cable--ever address the imbalance or call out the dishonesty and nihilsm on the right: Rachel. Keith. Ed, sometimes. And for their well-researched, beautifully-written, eloquently-delivered work in telling the truth, they're called "sick puppies by a former (Republican) president.

Go full-metal techno on them all. Use your blogs, your twitters, your e-mail lists, and your Letters to the Editor buttons. Call out every single instance of The Grand Equivalency Farce whenever you see it, and let everyone know. Call out the laughable inconsistencies that Stephen has listed above. Demand retractions; demand apologies. Demand that the media take some fucking responsibility.

[kathy a.]

yes, i agree with litbrit about calling them out -- by name. early and often. and explaining WHY they are full of shit.

and also i think it is necessary to get more information, less fictional drama, into the news factory. death threats on the president is news. "death panels" and the like is bullshit.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

I'm in total agreement that there is a horrible divide in this country, but I live in Florida, and I don't want to go!

Well, obviously the term "sane Southerner" doesn't apply to anyone who'd want to live in Florida...

8-)

[Eric Wilde]

Its enough to make me consider buying a rifle or shotgun. I could easily envision a couple of truckloads of good ol' boys running amok in our liberal neighborhood, raping and pillaging joyously. My wife and children not being white, we're sure to be a target.

If it weren't for the statistics about guns being used by/upon family members, I'd seriously consider owning a gun. Conservatives are scary. And I do mean anyone who self-identifies as a conservative. The conservative brand is nothing but the nutters now.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Strong post, Stephen. What happened with Bill Sparkman, the hanged census guy, really freaked me out.

[Clint]

I was convinced during the summer - when all of those Wingnuts were brandishing guns at town halls - that something terrible was going to happen. There's plenty of criticism to level against Obama, but that was just uncalled for.

There's something very unnerving about a heavily superstitious, angry and misinformed crowd armed with modern weaponry.

[litbrit]

There's something very unnerving about a heavily superstitious, angry and misinformed crowd armed with modern weaponry.

Just like the Taliban, don't you think? To whom we supplied an awful lot of firepower, back in the day when the USSR was part of another delusional wingnut's Axis of Evil, and the enemy of his enemy were his friends, etc?

The US government created that monster. Same thing with Saddam. And our own Dear Leaders never seem to get it that monsters have this annoying way of ditching protocol, escaping the lab, and going rogue. ;-)

[Clint]

litbrit,

Yeah, but in the words of President Carter's NSA, Brzezkinski, the Taliban are just "some stirred-up Moslems." No worries.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

If there is one single lesson the 20th Century teaches, it is "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." It isn't just us, just about every political group or interest has made that mistake somewhere.

[dm]

Being from Massachusetts, it always pissed me off when "Massachusetts" was used as a pejorative by people who arrogated the term "real America" to their out-of-touch and wingnutty wackadoodling.

So, I'm going to extend a little sympathy to people from the South, and limit my ranting to wingnuts and wackadoodles, and leave the regionalism out of it. A lot of them are probably as proud of their out-of-touchness as I was of New England's (though I do think that New England had the advantage of just representing the conventional thinking from twenty years into the future).

[oddjob]

as I was of New England's

And even that is too broad brush, when you consider the political differences between New Hampshire, Vermont, and the others. It's true they tend to share a "live & let live" attitude about their societies (especially as pertains to living with neighbors), but beyond that there are some very distinct differences between the New England states.

[big bad wolf]

i think dm has an excellent point, as did kathy a. in her initial comment. when we talk of lopping off the south, or everyone in the south being insane, or conservatives being killers, we speak far too broadly and we alienate people unnecessarily.

conservative is a useful word, and one that describes nearly everyone in some facets of their lives. when used as a self-applied political descriptor, conservative often signals nothing more than a sense that the existing structures are adequate and a worry that things could be worse. it doesn't mean intransigence. it doesn't mean a closed mind, though it often means one that doesn't seek out information. conservatives are often reachable, if only on an issue by issue base, if given information on things like concentration of wealth, or loss of dignity and home becuase of health care woes. they won't be reachable, if they think that we think conservative means madman or killer.

so i say let's stick to right-winger, winger, nutjob and the like and let conservatives be those we disagree with but do not fear violence from.

[Eric Wilde]

conservative is a useful word

Conservative is a brand, not just a word. Its a brand the nutters appropriated for themselves. All other users of the word beware, you will be smeared along with the nutters.

[kathy a.]

dm, wackadoodle is one of my favorite words. i don't use it often, but it is a perfect description.

BBW, i really like what you said about the word "conservative." alternative terms might be "prudent" or "cautious." my OAD gives the definitions: [1] disliking or opposed to great or sudden change, and [2] moderate, avoiding extremes.

the gasbags and wackadoodles have hijacked the term "conservative," and with the help of god-help-us how many dollars from wealthy nutjobs, have put their messages of hate, stupidity and fear on the air 24/7 everywhere. THAT's the enemy.

[big bad wolf]

fair and balanced, alone and together, are useful words also. when they were misappropriated, we worked to expose that misappropriation and substitute a more accurate description. nomenclature matters, if it didn't people wouldn't appropriate words.

[oddjob]

the gasbags and wackadoodles have hijacked the term "conservative,"

Once upon a time (Eisenhower's time) such "conservatives" were known as reactionaries. That term unfortunately is not used now.

It should be since it describes someone interested in actively turning the clock backwards, rather than someone reluctant to embrace major change all at once.

[oddjob]

The reactionaries' (mis)appropriation of "conservative" is perhaps the right-wing analog to the left's gradual withdrawal from the word "liberal" in favor of the older word "progressive" (which fortunately are terms more often synonymous than not, unlike conservative & reactionary).

[big bad wolf]

i like reactionary, for the unarmed nuts and revanchist, for the armed ones

[Eric Wilde]

Once upon a time 'liberal' meant in support of lassez faire economics. Now it doesn't. Language changes. 'Conservative' has come to mean these infamous lunatics following the likes of Rush and Beck. They're not going to stop calling themselves 'conservatives'. I see no reason to change what that term has become.

[big bad wolf]

damn. i've pinned myself as conservative for my failure to change with the times. :)

language certainly changes, but i don't agree that conservative has come to mean rush and beck, anymore than fair and balanced came to mean fox news. they can call themselves anything they want, but we need not accede to their self-descriptions. it's not a matter of freezing the language; it is a matter of resisting hijacking of the language, and maintaining distinctions that are useful to us politically for keeping the lines open to independents and people who think they are conservative, but are not on particular issues.

beyond that, while the specific political programs associated with the term liberal have changed, i think that, from laissez-faire in its day to health care in this age, liberal in a political sense has meant one open to ideas about changing the established order. the general meaning has not changed all that greatly, though the specific associations have. conservative has never meant raving lunatic or killer.

[Eric Wilde]

damn. i've pinned myself as conservative for my failure to change with the times.

:)

[oddjob]

the general meaning has not changed all that greatly, though the specific associations have. conservative has never meant raving lunatic or killer.

One generation's new ideas, embraced by that generation's liberals, become the tired, worn-out ideas of the generation's great-grandchildren, at which point the great-grandchildren who embrace the ideas are that generation's conservatives.