Wet Foot/Dry Foot Democrats

The ongoing and apparently not-close-to-ending border crisis allows once again the public discussion of immigration, illegals, amnesty… in other words a bunch of issues that the country is in near permanent deadlock about.  Although some of my friends on the right think  this border rush of streams of children and mothers from Central America is all part of some clever Obama scheme, it seems to me to be the dumbest clever scheme ever. If Obama’s intention was to use this crisis to pass “comprehensive immigration reform;” a code word for amnesty, he’s just screwed the pooch.

Gallup shows that the support for immigration in general has tanked since the beginning of the border crisis.

And Rasmussen shows that “59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the primary focus of any new immigration legislation passed by Congress should be to send the young illegal immigrants back home as quickly as possible.  Just 27% say it should focus instead on making it easier for these illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.”

That makes me think there is a big gulf between what the American people think about immigration and what its elected officials think.  The problem is, it’s sometimes hard to tell what our political leaders think.  Pelosi’s comments when she visited the border patrol facility in Brownsville, Texas sounded incoherent.

“I wish I could take all those children home with me…” 

“We’re all Americans in this hemisphere, North and South America.”

Eh, what does that mean in terms of policy?  Does she support letting all of the children stay, regardless of the circumstances?  Is she planning to adopt them all?  Or does she mean everyone in the Western Hemisphere should be allowed to enter the United States? It sounds like a jumble of nonsense but the rest of the Democratic leadership is just as bad. Breitbart collected a list of the ramblings.  See if you can pick out a policy here:

“House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) claimed America already has “extensive border security” while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the well-being of the illegal immigrant children “must be our first priority.”

Reps. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) “Yes, we need to match needs of our economy and our country’s values to our visa system.”

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) said taxpayers should pay for more lawyers for illegal immigrant children, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) went further, saying “every” illegal immigrant child should get legal representation.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) insisted that amnesty legislation would “raise wages” even though the Congressional Budget Office determined that the influx of more foreign workers would lower the wages of American workers.

If our political leaders are this stupid, one can only imagine how stupid the internet is on this issue.  I decided to collect the biggest reasons given for amnesty by left leaning folks on one of my political forums:

  • Americans are basically illegal aliens too and since we have no right to be here, we’ve no right to keep anyone else out.
  • Immigration laws are basically unenforceable so don’t even bother.
  • Border Control is too expensive. (I was shocked!  It was the first time I’ve heard anyone on the left concerned with how to pay for something.)
  • Opposition to illegal immigration is based on racism.
  • And related, to reduce the percentage of Whites in the United States.
  • The US has destroyed almost every country so people have no choice but to come here.

Compare the positions of these Yo Yos with our actual elected leaders.  There isn’t that big a difference, although the internet nuts are more direct, but it does give you, if you sift long enough, an actual position for Democrats on immigration.

Democrats seem to have an unspoken support for a form of Wet Foot/Dry Foot policy.  That policy, which we apply to Cuba under the Cuban Adjustment Act, allows Cubans who arrive in the United States to stay and apply for permanent residence.  However it doesn’t apply if Cubans are intercepted at sea.  So if a Cuban can get to the US, it’s like touching safe in a game of freeze tag.  They made it.  Democrats in policy and action sound like they want to apply that policy to every country in the world, not just Cuba.  They have not said it, yet, but it’s the most logical conclusion to their mish mash of statements.

 

My Post Vacation Links

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

I just drove back from vacation and boy are my…wheels tired.  OK admittedly that’s not exactly a keeper, but hey, I’ve been on vacation. But even on vacation, the learning never stops, so I’ve come across a few articles that I thought were insightful enough to pass on.

First up: ‘Revisiting Snowden’s Hong Kong Getaway’ in the Wall Street Journal.  Yeah I know it’s behind a pay wall but just Google the article title.  Sshh!  Don’t tell The Wall Street Journal this is their secret back door!

Although I try to keep up with the Snowden story, this had some tidbits I wasn’t aware of, such as Snowden vanishing from the time he arrived in Hong Kong on May 20th to the 31st of May.  Where was he?  There are no records of hotel or credit charges during those dates.  Mysterious…

 

English: American author and columnist Jonah G...

English: American author and columnist Jonah Goldberg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jonah Goldberg has a G File that is a testament to how good a writer he is when he can plug something worthwhile into an article that’s meant to be a throw away email newsletter. In, ‘The Importance of the Family,’ Goldberg argues that the family is the State’s biggest competitor and on the political level, Democratic political success is dependent on a disintegrating family unit.

 

 

English: Mark Steyn speaks at CPAC 2008 as Pam...

English: Mark Steyn speaks at CPAC 2008 as Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs looks on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

No links post could be complete without something from Mark Steyn.  In ‘Letting the IRS Get Away with it,’ Steyn points out one of the more troubling aspects of the IRS scandal; the release of donor lists of 501(c)3 organizations in order for leftwing activist groups to go after the donors personally.  It’s a chilling free speech issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English: Bob Newhart in Norfolk, Virginia. Doi...

English: Bob Newhart in Norfolk, Virginia. Doing a personal appearance at a K-Mart store. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

And just for fun, a blog recently posted an old Bob Newhart classic bit, ‘The Driving Instructor.’  Comedy is one of those things that its practitioners can grow out of, either because they’ve worn out their shtick, they’re no longer creative enough to produce new material, or they just get too old period.  In the case of Bob Newhart, based on his recent appearances on ‘The Big Bang Theory,’ he is just as good now as he was over 50 years ago.  In Newhart’s case, his shtick is his delivery.  No other comedian has mastered the art of deadpan delivery as Newhart has.

 

 

It really is about Free Stuff

The Cochran Mississippi Republican primary victory is a week old and almost everything that could be written about has been written.  It was eye opening in several ways.  I have to say as a tactic, going after Democratic Black voters to vote in the Republican primary, was a brilliant one. It’s probably one of the most original campaign tactics I’ve heard of in years.

But that shows the depths of the hatred that the Establishment Republicans have for the Tea Party. This seat wasn’t in danger of going Democrat if McDaniel won, but the establishment so didn’t want another Tea Party candidate in office that they would rather smear their own base as racist and take a chance that the seat would flip to Democrats after these sorts of tactics. Think about that. The national party would rather a safe senate seat go to the other party than to the Tea Party!

Republicans are not usually this dirty towards Democrats.  Can you imagine Republicans sending out defamatory fliers like this out on a Democratic candidate?

 

 

Considering the dirty pool involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if a fair amount of Tea Party votes stayed home in November, putting the seat at risk.  But that was a risk the establishment was more than willing to take.

But the race was revealing in another way that I have not seen remarked on much since last week.  I often debate and view political debates online and a consistent charge from the right is that the Democrats win by promising “free stuff.”  This is of course highly insulting to Democrats since they think voters are attracted to the great ideas of the Democrats, not mere voter bribery, but in this case for the runoff, Cochran ran as the guy who could bring home the bacon and McDaniel would cut spending (insert shocked moan of the crowd here), yes cut it!  Promising to cut spending is usually one of those things that goes over well in a Republican primary or runoff, but in this case Cochran bet correctly that the new voters he was bringing in wouldn’t find that an attractive policy.  So in the war between “free stuff” and fiscal discipline, free stuff won hands down.

Normally I would at least enjoy the comfort at having been proven correct on many Democratic voters’ intentions, but it’s a rather sad commentary that voter bribery can still sway enough votes to swing an election.  And it’s dangerous for the future of the country. This runoff was a pretty good test case that free stuff is sweet candy and fiscal discipline is castor oil.  But if I had my way, I would rather take the castor oil now than the chemotherapy later.

Iraq: Vietnam Redux?

I was too young to have any meaningful opinion on the Vietnam War.  I was just a kid.  But I do remember the last US troops leaving Vietnam.  Silly kid that I was, I thought that meant that we won the war.  It turned out that when the other shoe dropped, we lost the war.  The post Nixon Democratic surge in Congress killed meaningful military aid to South Vietnam, leading to the collapse of the South Vietnamese government within two months.  The North Vietnamese annexed the rest of the country, sent thousands into re-education camps, and launched a mass exodus of Vietnamese boat people. The iconic image is of US helicopters fleeing the American embassy in Saigon, a graphic symbol of our defeat and humiliation. The US suffered over 58,000 causalities, and ended up accomplishing nothing.

U1835718

U1835718 (Photo credit: tommy japan)

Here we go again.

I started to have that sinking, “here we go again” feeling back in January when Fallujah fell to the Al-Qaeda related group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  Considering the effort that the US put into taking that town from Al Qaeda, that was a little heartbreaking.  For those involved in actually taking Fallujah, it’s a lot heartbreaking.

The romp across Iraq by ISIS has been stunning.  Outnumbered 20-1 by the Iraqi Army, they’ve taken Mosul and Tikrit, and are heading south, presumably for the big prize, Baghdad.  Meanwhile, back in Washington, as recently as two weeks ago the administration was still touting ending the war in Iraq and defeating Al Qaeda as their two major significant foreign policy achievements.

Of course, “ending the war in Iraq” doesn’t mean the conflict ends, only that the US isn’t playing.  I’m sure the Democratic House in the 1970’s also felt like they were ending the war in Vietnam, if of course; you count a pretty spectacular defeat as ending the war. It’s hard to believe that the Obama administration hated the Iraq war so much that they would rather have an ISIS governed Iraq rather than to try to help stop that advance.  Although they’ve already turned down requests from the Iraqi government for air strikes on militant positions. These guys just aren’t Sunni’s that want a piece of the pie, they have the serious goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate, the old Al Qaeda goal, except unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS actually controls real territory and has an actual army, not merely terrorist bombers.

Interestingly, the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was detained by US forces in Iraq and released in 2009.When he was released, he said, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” That seems a lot less of a joke and more of a promise, particularly if ISIS succeeds in establishing its own terrorist state as a launching pad for worldwide terrorist attacks.

I hope that the Obama administration can put politics aside and take this threat seriously.  When we lost Vietnam it was a devastating blow and crippled US foreign policy for decades.  Although betraying another ally after we lost interest would be devastating for US foreign policy for decades to come, at least Vietnam didn’t become a terrorist state, threatening world security. If Obama doesn’t start taking seriously his role as world leader (and there is more evidence to the contrary than not over the last 5 years), the US and the world may find itself in a far more dangerous position than it has since 1939.  Obama has a choice to be Churchill or Chamberlain in the next few days, and I don’t have much confidence he’ll make the right choice.

 

Why The Administration is Surprised by the Berghdahl Reaction

All the negative reaction to the release was of no surprise to me, but the administration was caught totally flat footed by the negative reaction of the military and the American public to Bergdahl’s release.  As Obama scribe Chuck Todd reports:

 

As Obama high priest Chuck Todd stated, the administration did expect some sort of pushback by the release of these five Taliban Gitmo prisoners, but why was the Obama administration caught so flat footed by something that the entire rest of the country felt uneasy about, the effort that went into the release of an apparent deserter?

I have two possible theories on that:

Theory One:  The Left regarded him as a hero, so Obama did too.

In 2009, when Bergdahl first disappeared, it was reported that he had left post without weapons and without permission, so from the very first reportage on this issue, we’ve known that he wasn’t just captured, but that he just walked away under suspicious circumstances.  At the time I used to argue politics with a lefty who actually posted the story on his blog and was troubled by his apparent desertion as well.  All very non-partisan right?   Then came FOX.

A few days after Bergdahl’s capture/disappearance/desertion, Fox News ran an interview with its Military Analyst, LTC Ralph Peters, who had some choice words on Bergdahl:

Peters called Bergdahl a liar and possible deserter.  If the blogosphere left needed to know what side to be on in this issue, Peters showed them; the opposite side from Peters and Fox.  I saw the left reaction to that near immediately when the same lefty who first posted the blog post on Bergdahl noting that he had walked off post suspiciously and that there was a lot more to this story, suddenly switched gears and attacked Peters for dare besmirching a captured American POW.

Private First Class Bowe Robert Bergdahl, Unit...

Private First Class Bowe Robert Bergdahl, United States Army. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I assume that 180 degree reversal came about due to some talking points that felt more hay could be made by attacking Peters and Fox for daring to attack an American soldier.  And of course, a disillusioned solder is the perfect lefty military icon.

So it makes sense that to the typical member of the Obama administration, all they would know of Bergdahl is that he’s an American hero that was attacked by Fox News years ago.

Theory Two:  An excuse to empty Guantanamo Bay

A few weeks ago I caught some video of President Obama being asked about his promise to close the US prison at Guantanamo Bay.  Obama seemed really heartfelt about his regret at not closing it.  Unlike so many issues, where it feels like he’s just reading off a teleprompter (OK he is), Obama sounded very sincere about still wanting to shut down Gitmo.  This wasn’t just a campaign promise; he really wants to do it.

But Obama has been stymied by Congress, and not just “obstructionist” Republicans, but Democrats as well.  He couldn’t get Gitmo closed when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, so the odds of accomplishing anything via legislation appear dim.  But even if Obama can’t close Gitmo, he’s the Commander in Chief.  He could empty Gitmo.

It’s possible that trading 5 Taliban bad guys wasn’t so much a trade as Obama giving away something he wants to get rid of anyway and pretending it’s a trade.  By all indications, these are some of the “worst of the worst.”  With those guys gone, it makes releasing guys not as bad easier.  With the Afghan War winding down, it’s possible that Obama is going to pretend that’s the end of the war on terror, and just let everyone go from Gitmo.

Although such a move seems highly irresponsible, so was releasing those five Taliban commanders and he did that, in spite of the recommendations of the military, intelligence, and foreign services.  If the Obama administration intends to do a back door shut down of Gitmo, he’s already gotten the worst out of the way.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Memorial Day Links

This is just a collection of interesting reading I’ve come across in the past few days.  They’re not really related to Memorial Day.

The Case for Reparations

This from The Atlantic, and my main surprise is that The Atlantic ran something like this before Salon did.  Written by Atlantic columnist Ta-Nehisi Coates, the title doesn’t match the article, which instead is about the persistent housing and mortgage discrimination that sabotaged dreams of African American home ownership and achieving the middle class throughout the 20th Century. As a history, the article is extremely well done, but has what to do with reparations exactly?  My gut feeling is that this is a well researched piece that Coates had been working on for a while, and the editors decided to run with the title and the tacked on conclusion about reparations.  My guess is it’s after a call from either the White House, DNC, or whoever is planning election strategy for Democrats for this year.  In case there was any doubt, in the same way that the Democratic strategy for the 2012 election was the “Republican War on Women,” 2014 will be the year of the “Republican War on Blacks.”  In order to generate African American turnout, could this be the year that the Democratic Party begins supporting some sort of reparations?

Charles Murray is his usual controversial self, but he makes some good points with:

Down With the Four Year Degree!

Murray argues that the value of a 4 year college degree, the trusty BA, has dropped over the years as more people over the years as more people have them.  In 2014, does it make sense to tell every High School student who can fog an SAT to go to college, even if you are going for non descript social science or liberal arts field?  And he brings up a really penetrating question, why does it take 4 academic school years to get a BA no matter what is taught?

I’m not into what the kids call tumbler, but I came across this link and it’s eye opening.

Gobing Detroit

This tumbler however, compares street photos of Detroit from 2009 to 2013.  The rapid deterioration of the property is amazing.  Note to Walking Dead producers:  If you want to see how houses and businesses really look after the apocalypse, this will give you the comparative tools to build realistic sets.

No collection of links could be complete without one from Mark Steyn.  The problem is, as always, which one to pick?

Inequality Before the Law

The article compares National Review writer Dinesh D’Souza’s conviction for breaking campaign finance laws, with the Obama campaign disengaging their security for credit card transactions for 2008 and 2012 so anyone, from Adolph Hitler to Mickey Mouse could donate to the Obama campaign, and from anywhere in the world (Hitler donated from “The Reichstag, Germany”).  All a violation of campaign laws of course, but not even an investigation by the FEC.  It was an issue that was well covered in the conservative blogosphere but not at all interesting to the MSM.  This is part of a long term issue Steyn has been discussing of the organs of government being corrupted to serve the ruling party.

Since it is Memorial Day after all, on a military related note:

Army Taps Scorpion to Replace UCP

The Army has officially selected its new camouflage pattern, called Scorpion, to replace its current UCP gray pajamas pattern, the last one I wore before retiring.  It’s very close to, but not quite similar to the Multicams that have been worn for Afghanistan deployment for the past few years.  Why not just multicams?  If I knew the answer to that, I might be smart enough to know why switching from desert camo pattern of the old Battle Dress Uniform to gray greenish digital camo would make sense for the desert.  All I know is that the travesties of US Army camouflage uniforms over the last 12 years deserve a much longer treatment.

 

 

Better Than a Telescreen

The Guardian, as part of its ongoing program of weakening the West by revealing bit by bit the Snowden documents, released a new one a few weeks ago about a GCHQ program called Optic Nerve. GCHQ, Government Communications Headquarters, is the British equivalent of the NSA and because of the close relationship between the American and British Intelligence communities got caught in the Snowden web of stolen documents.  Optic Nerve was (or is?  Who knows?) a program for capturing video images from Yahoo video chats.

As The Guardian reports:

A model of the GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham

A model of the GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

The comparison that the paper immediately and obviously uses is the telescreen from Orwell’s 1984. Orwell’s telescreens were basically TV’s that worked both ways; while you’re watching a show calling for all praise to the State (think Hardball), the TV is watching you back, checking to see if you’re rolling your eyes when Chris Matthews praises Obama or if you are in a rapturous state at the mention of his name.  The totalitarian implications of both the technology and the program are obvious.

So when I saw the story, why did I think, “Man that’s freakin’ cool?”

Well the technology is pretty neat.  And I can hardly blame an intelligence agency for wanting to know everything.  It’s only what any intelligence agency has every wanted, to be able to know absolutely everything.  The thing is, our technology is rapidly reaching the point where it’s possible to know, if not everything, than almost every communication that you make that has some sort of electronic component.

I can even see why GCHQ would be interested in screen capturing people’s video chats.  Imagine a situation in which a terrorist event in the UK has a shot of a suspect on closed circuit cameras.  Facial recognition software on the usual government databases turn up nothing.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have another source of pictures to scan through?  More than that, if you get a hit on a Yahoo image, that brings along quite a bit of other metadata associated with the Yahoo account being used.  That, my friends, is neat!

Low probability of success you say?  I would agree.  The odds are not great that you could check all legitimate government databases but then get a hit on a Yahoo video chat database, but who knows?  If it helps you solve a terrorist event, it would be worth it and all would be forgiven.

Low probability searching is becoming more and more worthwhile as the capacity for computer processing and data storage increases.  You only need a human to take a look at something if you actually get a hit on your searches. So that makes it more worthwhile to expand intelligence gathering into every nook and cranny on the off chance that you can prevent, or help solve, a terrorist event.

But that brings us back to telescreens and Orwell in general.  Do we really want to be observed to that extent that you literally are on someone’s video, phone, or internet presence at all times?  The Western nations are having that conversation right now, but the problem isn’t the intelligence programs, it’s the technology itself.  You may not like the NSA or GCHQ having this technology, but eventually, the technology will spread out so that everyone can have it.  Would having Putin’s Russia or the Red Chinese looking in everyone’s video chat be any better?  How about Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea?  There are real totalitarian regimes right now that would love to have this technology for nothing but nefarious purposes and eventually, they will be able to buy it or build it themselves.

In the Western countries we think we can reign in our intelligence services by passing a law or something, and we can.  I can see us returning to a pre-World War II political climate in which, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” But we can’t pass a law stopping the Russians or Iranians from doing the same thing.  Even if we legally denude the ability of agencies like NSA, CSE, or GCHQ to achieve some sort of total information dominance, we can’t stop the rest of the world that could care less about our concerns for privacy.  I think you can imagine the possibilities of foreign dictatorships using these technologies to blackmail and manipulate westerners.

Maybe I’m naive, but if these technologies have to exist, I would rather the NSA or GCHQ have them than the Russian FAPSI or China’s Technical Department of the Central Military Commission.  But we are not going to get a choice on that since the technologies exist now and will eventually be acquired and used by the baddest of the bad.  Even Edward Snowden may look back in nostalgia when only the Western intelligence agencies had these capabilities.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Putin Makes Obama Look Weak…Again

The Olympics had barely wrapped up and the wild dogs released back into Sochi when the Ukraine began a fracturing internal crisis that lead to Vladimir Putin seizing the Crimea back from Ukrainian control,  in a de facto, if not de jure annexation.

English: Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder

English: Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The American response?  Obama and Putin spoke on the phone and Obama expressed “grave concern.”  Take that Putin!

It’s pretty clear that Putin has taken the measure of Obama, found him wanting as a serious leader, and has decided he can ignore him in most matters.  After the Putin checkmate in Syria, I’m sure he feels he has free range to act in what he perceives are his interests worldwide.  But let’s not give Putin too much credit here, the US foreign policy juggernaut he faces are Obama and that blowhard John Kerry; a pair that would find themselves outfoxed at a high school model UN.

The US does have alternatives in dealing with Putin; it’s not a choice between craven surrender or total war.  Putin does want things, and has gotten things already that he hasn’t deserved.  Maybe some of those things should be taken from him.

One is membership in the G-8.  The G-7 was a group of the largest economies on that planet.  And Russia wanted in to showcase that it too, was a big power.  Maybe Russia should be kicked out.  It’s something that would make Putin furious and take from him something he really wanted.

Another is to withdraw from the New START treaty.  That’s the current treaty governing the reduction of US and Russian nuclear forces.  Of course the problem with this is that START is something that Obama probably wanted more than Putin does.  But because Obama wants it so much, it would send a message on how serious Obama is on Russia’s intervention.  Of course, for that very reason, START would never be on the table.  Obama just isn’t that serious.

Wow, I just wrote something profound!  But that’s the problem, and one of the reasons among many that Putin feels free to walk over the international community and particularly President Obama.

Because Obama just isn’t that serious.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Liberals Don’t Get About Conservatives

What liberals don’t get about conservatives is basically everything.  This occurred to me this weekend while chatting on the political web forums.  Someone posted a news story of a crazed Republican School Board member going into a strange rant on 9/11, cryptanalysis, and George Bush.  Anyone viewing the video would be hard pressed not to draw the conclusion that the woman is undergoing a breakdown and probably needs some sort of mental health counseling.

Unless of course you’re a liberal who views that as typical right-wing behavior.

This could be dismissed as a comment of a troll, of which there are plenty on the internet, but I had the impression that the person was more or less sincere in viewing people on the right as crazed and irrational.  And there could well be a more or less scientific reason for this.

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who has written the book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. The book tries to show how morality is different depending on your political ideology. Reading a review of the book at a law blog, I came across this point:

One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

This struck me since it matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experiences.  Conservatives get where Liberals are coming from, but Liberals just don’t get where Conservatives are coming from.  In the US, we live in liberal-land. The educational system is run by liberals, TV & Movies are made and produced by liberals, and most importantly, all of the major news media, either Newspapers, magazines, or TV news, are run by liberals (liberals can bleat, “but what about Fox?”- But that just shows Fox is an outlier). So I’m constantly, surrounded by the worldview of liberals. For me to take a test or pass as a liberal would be ridiculously easy. I could go to a Netroots Nation, Think Progress convention or meeting and easily pass for one of them. I know your buzzwords and prejudices. As Patton said, (and I paraphrase) “You liberal bastards, I read your book!”

All things being equal, knowing nothing of politics, people should tend to be liberal. Of course the caveat to that is all things are not equal, but you can see the power of liberal institutions to set the agenda. That’s why, in an attempt to turn the conversation away from Obamacare, the administration started talking about about income inequality,  The MSM dutifully followed along because being liberal institutions, they would rather talk about income inequality than Obamacare too. We really should be talking about economic growth and job creation but that’s not an issue that can help the administration or that they have any real ideas about.  But because we all live in liberal land, liberals never have to think about their ideology or challenge any of their premises, which is something that conservatives have to do all the time because they are constantly getting push back on their premises.

As if to double down on Haidt’s ideas, last week The Nation ran an article called, Why the Curious Right Wing Silence on Michael Sam? Some passages are well worth highlighting:

Yes, the crazies in Westboro Baptist Church and some of the more reptilian swamps of the right-wing blogosphere have let loose with the homophobia, but the mainstream has been silent. It is not just Fox. Doesn’t National Review or The Weekly Standard have anything interesting, or even uninteresting, to say about any of this? Nothing? Really?

The New Republic’s Cohn even put out a plaintive tweet asking people on the right, “What do conservatives & Republicans think about a gay player in the NFL? Honest question, hoping for positive answers.” He did receive a curt tweet or two in response, mostly of the, “I don’t care as long as he can play football” variety.

In other words, the left cannot accept that in political terms, this is mostly a non story on the right.  For them, this is HUGE!  The answer is too simple for the Left to accept. For them, identity politics trumps everything. It’s why they can’t accept opposition to Obama’s policies as being anything other than closeted racism. When the most important thing about President Obama is his race, how else could opposition to his economic, social or foreign policies be interpolated as anything other than racism?

On the one hand, it’s kind of amusing that the Left is so clueless on figuring out the Right that even the simplest explanations elude them.  But on the other hand, I really wish they understood what I was trying to say.  When their default to anything I say is along the lines of a mentally ill school board member, it shows how large the gulf is between us.

Enhanced by Zemanta