Bachmann Derangement Syndrome No. 1
Why do conservative women drive many reporters crazy? PDS—Palin Derangement Syndrome—has been around for nearly three years now, with The New York Times and other liberal outposts so eager to defame Sarah Palin that last week they sent reporters to Alaska and called for volunteers to scrutinize her thousands of emails. Now, we need a new line in the psychiatric manual, Bachmann Derangement Syndrome, to define some press reaction to the GOP’s newest presidential candidate.
Exhibit No. 1: this morning’s Associated Press story by Brian Bakst. He wrote of Michele Bachmann’s “brazen style.” (Dictionary.com definition of brazen: Bold and without shame, or made of brass.) He wrote of her “unpredictable edge,” as if she concealed an ax behind her back and suddenly started attacking Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, the unwary men who stood beside her in last night’s GOP presidential candidate debate. Bakst waxed on: “Known for piercing and sometimes inaccurate commentary, she regularly aggravates political foes. . . .” Let he who is without inaccuracy cast the first stone.
Vice President Joe Biden, of course, is notorious for his flubs, but reporters often depict him as a kindly uncle: Bless his heart, Old Joe can’t help himself. I don’t like to throw around slurs like sexist, but something of that kind may be contributing to PDS and BDS. Maybe some male journalists assume, against the facts, that all women should be for abortion or other liberal causes, and that conservative women who aren’t should stay home, barefoot and pregnant.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top87 Comments to “Bachmann Derangement Syndrome No. 1”
How long before they go after her children?
Report comment to moderator
New Jersey Lawyer…
Told ya so.
Report comment to moderator
Is it really only conservative women? Hasn’t Hillary Clinton received her share of bad press as well?
Report comment to moderator
3. Only when she challenged you-know-who.
Report comment to moderator
4. Which is more evidence that when the left has to choose between women and any other PC protected group, women always lose.
Report comment to moderator
We need and the libs DREAD with fear and trembling a woman made of brass.
Folks don’t realize it but the person who famously called Margaret Thatcher an “Iron Lady”
And yes, Vice President Biden has got inumerable passes from the MSM. Can you imagine who a conservative would have been hung out to dry had he/she plagiarized from any recent Brit politician?
Joe Biden is why legions of conservatives pray ea night fervently for Barack OBama’s continued good health.
Report comment to moderator
Maggie got her moniker from Brezhnev and it was intended to be a put down.
He helped her immensely.
Report comment to moderator
“Joe Biden is why legions of conservatives pray ea night fervently for Barack OBama’s continued good health.”
Yep. I couldn’t believe some former posters here who defended Biden over Palin. Saying Palin had no experience and no qualification, while Biden had plenty of experience and track history…
Yeah. We know. That’s why we prefer Palin over Mr Joe “trip over his own feet” Biden….
Report comment to moderator
I mean, please. You prefer Biden as president over Palin? If contemplating Biden as president doesn’t give you the heebie jeebies, you just don’t have any good sense…
Either that, or you are just a partisan hack.
Report comment to moderator
I suspect if Mrs Bachmann does get traction in the primaries the following will happen: she will undergo the same treatment Robert Bork experienced.
As an attorney she presumably wrote for law review, law journal etc. Admittedly the only readers those pubs have are either bored lawyers, law school profs or law students compelled to read them. But there will be a relentless Lexis/Nexis search
If conservatives can dig up Hillary treatises equating marriage to slavery, nothing is off the table
Report comment to moderator
Agreed with prior postings. Women who dare deviate from the lib script (”Marriage = Oppression, Children= Burdensome career killer, Abortion = vital means for Empowerment/Self-Actualization”) will be viewed at first with bewilderment (How could she?) and then condemnation (How dare she think that!?)
And if the woman attends church or speaks at church conferences?
Bachmann success reminds me of the NY Times film critic who said “I don’t know how Nixon won. None of the people I know voted for him”
Exactly!!
Report comment to moderator
Let he who is without inaccuracy cast the first stone.
Good counter-attack, but not a defense of inaccuracy.
“Brazenness” is what liberals say when they’re in a state of shock. Liberals are left wordless by the lying of social conservatives about almost any topic, including the ethical status of the fetus, global warming, the origins of political institutions, the function of economic stimulus, the contributors to the deficit, the national origins of Barack Obama, his plans to euthanize sick people, solvency of Medicare and Social Security, etc. etc.
Palin thinks and tweets about all these topics at an 8th grade level. If she were a liberal, social conservatives would call her a scatter-brain.
Report comment to moderator
There is a word out there that people love to use when confronted with a powerful, self assured woman. They mean it to be derogatory,but there is a movement afoot to change the meaning to
Babe In Total Control of Herself.
You go Michelle!
Report comment to moderator
The reason is clear. Liberals detest anyone who doesn’t fit their narrative or challenges that narrative. The narrative is that Republicans are stupid and evil and hate blacks and women. If a black or woman runs as a Republican it is like saying the emperor has not clothes. Their narrative is exposed as a naked lie.
You could see it last night where John King incessantly tried to interrupt the candidates because they weren’t giving the stereotypical answers that stupid Republicans are supposed to say. They are supposed to say they love guns and greed and hate blacks and women and old people and pretty much everyone who isn’t rich and white and male.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know if Michelle Bachmann did a clerkship, but I hope so. And I hope her judge taught her how to be a man the way mine taught me. She needs to stop being “ladylike” and call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. That’s what scares them about Palin. And she’s going to need a tough hide. She needs that Iron Lady stuff.
KBells is right. They went after Hillary when they decided on Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth is partially correct; I will translate his post a bit out of the native language of the Leftist, which is (scientifically) Cartoonish-slanderium, i.e. more commonly known as Leftspeak.
For instance, he is correct when he says that Leftists think that it is ‘brazen’ when people actually dare think
1) That brutally killing children by impalement or chemicals is wrong
2) That bankrupting the country and turning it into a third-world banana dictatorship is wrong
3) That the State deciding whether you are worth keeping alive (or not) and what care you can get is wrong
4) That science being subordinate and prostituted to politics is wrong, i.e. that ‘human-induced global warming’ is a demonstrable and poorly contrived lie, fostered on a cartoon-educated and gullible generation by Statists who could not care less about the environment, but only about complete economic and political control
5) That the Left-wing political ideology which is directly responsible for the deaths of upward of a billion people through its mindless pursuit of serfdom is wrong and a historically failed ideology
6) That the existence of an ever-growing parasite class (now approaching around 40% in the country, depending on how it is counted), dependent on handouts from the State, and wholly owned by the State, is not a good thing
Etc. So he (Scroop Moth) is correct that Leftists think all these things are ‘brazen’.
Where Scroop Moth is completely incorrect, of course, is in his assertion that Leftists are ever ‘left wordless’ (sic).
Scientifically speaking, Leftists are sort of like chickens without their heads; a headless chicken is a veritable symphony of clucks and crows and squawks and coos and gurgles; it quickly becomes apparent to the discriminating observer that the head of a chicken is not really all that immediately essential to the continued functioning of the chicken, at least at a rudimentary level.
And hence I would have to object to Scroop Moth’s characterization of Leftists as being ever rendered ‘wordless’.
One simply cannot escape the biology of one’s species, you see.
Report comment to moderator
Oh well, so much for Olasky’s puff piece on Newt. He’s just so last week.
Report comment to moderator
I like going through elections with Drill.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I recall learning the following definitions:
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC noun, a country where you do as your told or you get shot
NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMT noun, group of armed people working to establish a People’s Republic
In the meantime I’ve noticed that the MSM in need of a quote to represent the “women’s perspective” will trot out someone from NOW.
Now let’s overlook the presumptuousness of a group claiming to speak for an entire gender. But how representative can it be if you compare their membership to Concerned Women for America? CWA may be a Dobsonite front group but you Left folks still gotta concede it must be way more representative of most women than NOW ever was!
Report comment to moderator
Still amazed at the Two Minute Hate sessions the seculibs have for James and Shirley Dobson of FoTF even after James handed off the organization’s guidon to Jim Daly.
Report comment to moderator
#17 Arcadia,
Marvin Olasky has been the most unrelenting critic of Newt. Newt has his own platoon of apologists and defenders but never would I put Professor Olasky or any of the WMB team in their ranks
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
“NOW” is representative of some American Women.
All five of them….
Report comment to moderator
. . the State deciding whether you are worth keeping alive (or not) and what care you can get is wrong
Who gets to decide, if not the State? Insurance companies? The planter who bought you in Charleston, SC? A jury of your (White) peers in Harris County, TX? The chief of your or a rival clan? The band-level raiders who discover you alone in the forest?
What matters to me is what the decision is.
Apart from the state, there were no individual rights, including the individual and alienable right to property.
Marx was wrong about a distant past of primitive communism that was destroyed through class conflict. Property — land, specifically — was never held and worked collectively. But the libertarians are wrong, too. Prior to the state, there were customary and group rights and multiple forms of use and access, but no individual property rights as libertarians define them.
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revolution/dp/0374227349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308080588&sr=1-1
FYI, national healthcare schemes decide what treatments to pay for and how much they will pay for them, not “what care you can get.” In fact, nobody, under any system can determine that autonomously. Let’s employ libertarian-think. All a consumer can do is offer to pay. The service provider gets a choice about whether or not to accept the offer and perform the service requested. You can offer to pay your oncologist lots of money to dress up and dance and wail around your cancer ward, but, technically speaking, you don’t get to decide whether that happens.
Your in good hands with social democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Olasky on Newt last week:
I couldn’t overlook the questions about Gingrich. That many of Gingrich’s views are mine as well does not allow me to ignore his record.
This doesn’t mean we should hiss Gingrich now. Even the apostle Paul wrote about his own ongoing struggle with sin. This means that we cannot choose sinless political leaders—they don’t exist…
The whole evangelical dance with sinful leaders is fascinating. It sort goes like this:
“So and so is a sinner”. (Well, duh, we all are).
But in my judgment s/he is sufficiently contrite and will get my vote.
There is a real disconnect between the vengeful –I will make you eat your own babies– god of whom Ken and Xion spoke so proudly yesterday, and the realpolitik of leaders like Olasky.
As for Bachmann, here is a section of the debate:
As president, would you try to overturn — what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?
BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.
I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life….
BACHMANN: I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws….
…BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on — on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
I guess that makes me wonder what she thinks the purpose of the Constitution is.
Report comment to moderator
Let he who is without inaccuracy cast the first stone.
Here is a blasphemous and vain allusion to words that could only be said with validity by the sinless Lamb of God.
Olasky casts the words of Christ before the swine, not knowing the difference between a pearl and a retort. The Lord doesn’t issue a pass to pimps or other enablers of the woman an at the well. Christ’s saying is not an indulgence for wrongdoing.
I knew Jesus. He was a friend of mine.
Besides, I don’t think that Palin and Bachman will go and sin no more. Inaccuracy is their profession. Casuistry is Olasky’s.
Report comment to moderator
Nah, Scroop Moth.
You don’t get to redefine reality, in order to fit reality to your own flawed and historically failed ideology.
The State is not a flawless God. Nor is it simply a neutral computer program. Nor is it a just and loving parent.
It is, as wise men have pointed out, a fearsome monster, best kept securely chained, and fed as infrequently as possible, in order to keep it as weak as possible, so that it does not swell and consume everything before it.
Your assertion that the basis (or bases) of your rights are merely an expression of the State may indeed be (and probably is) true for you, you being you.
It is, however, certainly not true for me. Nor was it true of the founders of the system you have, by happenstance of birth (I suppose), attached yourself to (even while loathing the very existence of your host). In that sense, you are like a sort of bad-tempered and unappreciative leech.
Your philosophy regarding rights and the State is simply recycled Stalinism, except Stalin had a few more excuses than you do; he lived in earlier times, before yet another few hundred million died, thanks to yours, and his, shared ideology – and proclivities.
As well, you would, no doubt, have made a simply splendid addition to the court of Louis the 14th, bewigged and powdered and fawning, scraping your liveried belly on the throne room floor, and squirming in unrestrained delight at being given the right by the State to hold the morning Right Royal Chamber Pot.
The various phrases in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address like ‘We, the people’ and ‘inalienable rights’ and ‘bestowed by our Creator’ and ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ and the whole tenor of these things must be quite provoking to you.
And, nah. Regarding the State and life and death and who gets what.
Candidly, I don’t need or want a State that is controlled by a corrupt and murderous far-Left cabal, murders a million children a year, and is actively attempting to destroy the Republic involved (anymore than it already is) in making decisions about who lives – and who dies – in my family, thanks.
And I won’t, under any circumstance, support (for instance) butchering children en masse, under State sanction, so that I might (mayhaps) steal a problematic few more tortured gasps of air at the bitter end, or go on yet another cruise in the Caribbean.
You, on the other hand, do.
It makes me wonder, it does.
Just what exactly is your vision of ‘health care’ for the enemies of your State, like poor ol’ Drill, when he lies wheezing and bloody and knife-stuck on the gurney, perhaps due to some unfortunate encounter with a Black Panther at a voting booth, or something?
I suspect, based on your stated proclivity for butchering folks you (or the State) declares to be non-human (i.e. those incapable of resistance), I know.
Makes me want to go out and buy some more ammunition, actually.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth says, “Palin thinks and tweets about all these topics at an 8th grade level”, and thinks that’s bad. See the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110613/pl_ac/8633173_latest_revelation_from_palin_emails_she_is_literate_in_english_1
Her emails were written at an 8th-grade level, which places her on the level of a “typical corporate CEO.”
Report comment to moderator
Attention is focused on Palin for three reasons.
1. She actively seeks it out. Witness the reality TV show, bus tour, book tour, etc.
2. She is either loved or hated by a great many people so coverage attracts readers / viewers.
3. She is a political troll who is constantly issuing sound bites calculated for maximum inflammation value.
As I’ve pointed out before it’s not just those on the left who think Palin is a hack.
Report comment to moderator
Stupid html tags.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Palin (and most politicians) seek all the attention they can get.
But why the completely over-the-top fascination with her by those who do hate her?
Seriously, I’ve seen liberal friends physically rush to stand silent and aghast in front of a television set when she comes on. It just seems, well, kind of strange to me, I guess. ?
Why the obsession?
(I don’t really love or hate her — she’s interesting, bright, but I don’t see her as presidential material per se — and her chances of getting the nomination are next to zero; why do so many care about her personal emails or where her bus is headed?)
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, you’re upset that Bachmann would uphold the 10th amendment and respect a state’s decision to allow same sex “marriage”????
Report comment to moderator
Maybe it’s the liberal tendency (maybe partly because most liberals are young?) to react very emotionally to political figures and news? I don’t know. I just don’t get the ramped up reactions I see.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J: Seriously, I’ve seen liberal friends physically rush to stand silent and aghast in front of a television set when she comes on. It just seems, well, kind of strange to me, I guess. ?
And many conservatives do the same thing with Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.
Olasky’s just indulging the Right Wing Persecution Complex, predictable as it is boring. And then you and others play along by pretending it’s only people on the left who do this or that thing that gosh, you just don’t understand.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Drill, no ammo for you. You seem to use words rather well, though.
I am curious: how many of your close friends and relatives work for one form or another of the “fearsome monster”? When you drive on an interstate hiway filled or take a flight, are you angry at the monster that makes that possible safely? When the firefighters arrive to douse your neighbor’s fire which threatens your home do you curse the monster? When it tells your neighbor that he or she may not burn a huge pile of leaves on a windy day are you happy or sad?
When you visit a “doctor” or a dentist or order up a taxi, are you happy or angry that someone in “the monster” decided that this individual met at least some basic qualfications? And when that doc provides a prescription are you happy or angry that someone has checked to see if the medicine is safe or effective?
BTW, the Black Panther line was beneath you.
Report comment to moderator
Today is a great day for flag-waving!
Happy Flag Day everyone (see my post at today’s Whirled Views for some reading recommendations).
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I (and most conservatives I know, come to think of it) tend to avoid watching those folks.
I’m more likely to just unemotionally change the channel.
Report comment to moderator
Neither do I incessantly post videos of them on Facebook. Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
33. Actually when one of those guys comes on I rush to the TV to change the channel.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: BTW, the Black Panther line was beneath you.
You think so? It seemed right in keeping with most of the bile he spews.
Report comment to moderator
But why the completely over-the-top fascination with her by those who do hate her?
It’s a good question. Honestly, I can barely stand to watch her speak. It’s like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Report comment to moderator
#33 Conan “And many conservatives do the same thing with Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.”
Nope. Doesn’t happen. It isn’t the same thing at all.
#34 Arcadia “I am curious: how many of your close friends and relatives work for one form or another of the “fearsome monster””
Conservatives, even the staunchest libertarians acknowledge a proper limited role of government to protect its citizens and to act as a referee to keep the market honest and so on. It is even biblical, not that you would care.
I’ve posted extensively on the Heritage report on economic freedom which compliments certain big government countries like Canada and Sweden. Their governments are more socialistic, but the citizens are economically freer. That kind of rational analysis is not the fearing of a boogeyman.
In two posts in a row you both mischaracterize conservatives and then trash your own false characterizations.
What good is criticism if the thing you are criticizing doesn’t even exist? You’re just arguing with phantoms in your own head. I’m trying to help you out here.
Report comment to moderator
Women on both sides of the political spectrum are treated harshly by their critics far more than males. This extends back to Geraldine Ferraro and beyond. Its not a derangement syndrome its sexism and its alive on both sides. That being said, Palin deserves much of the criticism she gets. I have said before that Bachmann is much the same but apparently she is improved or become more polished so perhaps I should have second thoughts. Before you rushed to judgment, consider I have very little admiration for Margaret Thatcher yet I do respect her abilities and intelligence. she understood far more than Reagan the ideological and economic battles of the time and she also was the first to realize the opening Gorbachev presented.
Why do some on the left watch Palin?? At first it was good comedy and then it was like slowing down on the freeway to see the car wreck and now, I just change the channel — the 15 minutes are over.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #41: Nope. Doesn’t happen. It isn’t the same thing at all.
Ha! Hahaha.
Oh man, that’s the best laugh I’ve had all day. And the funniest thing is, you honestly believe this.
Wow that’s funny.
Report comment to moderator
xion: Conservatives, even the staunchest libertarians acknowledge a proper limited role of government to protect its citizens and to act as a referee to keep the market honest and so on. It is even biblical, not that you would care.
Yep, I suppose that’s why the current R budgets cuts the budget of the CFTC, which regulates markets which dwarf the stock markets, by 50%. Those markets include both food and oil, and the regulators are the only ones standing between the market manipulators and the consumers.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS 4
You absolutely read my mind in answer to 3.
Except I would have said you-know-who’s name.
Report comment to moderator
“Just what exactly is your vision of ‘health care’ for the enemies of your State, like poor ol’ Drill . . ?”
The best that our tax money can buy, DRILL, and if that’s not enough, whatever you can afford on your own.
Even in your persistent vegetative state, you’re a person.
Whence your obsession with discussing me? I think your posts would be stronger if you confined your remarks to the topic.
FYI, almost no leftists today in the US or Europe are authoritarians.
Report comment to moderator
#44 Arcadia All regulation isn’t equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation. If you read the Heritage Report On Economic Freedom you will see that US regulatory policy is contributing to, not alleviating the economic crisis.
Report comment to moderator
The Left believes in sexism? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Report comment to moderator
#43 Conan When has a conservative attacked Obama’s children or set up camp next to his house to spy on him. When has the media said anything negative about him as a person. No one makes fun of him, not even comedians. They say jokes, but he always comes out as the smart one.
The difference is that no conservative I know hates Obama as a person. He’s a smart likable guy. We disagree with his policy and hate the fact that no one holds him accountable. He is secretive and deceptive as a politician and some of the things he does are even illegal, like starting secret wars, but he certainly doesn’t care and neither does the press.
It is not hate to point out when he lies. It is not hate to point out that whatever he says, the opposite will happen. If he says more jobs, then there will be fewer. If he says he’ll heal the ocean then there will be a massive oil spill. If he say we will be more energy independent then we will be less. But those are just facts which can be verified.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Oh spare me. Your pathetic partisanship is just sad.
I don’t know about Obama’s children, but Chelsea Clinton was a regular object of mockery during the Clinton presidency. Remember Rush Limbaugh saying she was the new White House dog?
The right, including the right-leaning media, has said plenty negative about Obama as a person, as well as Reid, Pelosi and other Democrats. And so do thousands upon thousands of conservative bloggers, posters to Internet forums such as this one and people in ordinary conversation.
I would say that the number of liberals who actually hate Bachman or Palin as people — as opposed to strongly disliking their policies and wanting them to not get elected — is about the same as the number of conservatives who actually hate Obama or other Dems… your denial proves nothing except your own inability to see things even-handedly.
Report comment to moderator
#50
An extreme low point in Rush’s monologue. I tend to say until a pol’s kids are old enough for voting/campaigning they are off limits to satirists etc. Chelsea later campaigned for her mother. A young man asked how she felt during the entire L’affaire Lewinsky.
Miss Clinton got quite agitated but as an adult she was fair game.
Report comment to moderator
I think against Obama, guys like Pawlenty or Santorum stand not a chance. MB will give him a run for the money. She could beat BHO. Hence the R folks probably will not nominate her
Report comment to moderator
Hillary Clinton’s appearance was criticized (headbands?); she was called “mannish” and then she was gone after for crying. I also think that LBJ’s girls came under criticism as well as Amy Carter. So going after women and the children of politicians isn’t a partisan issue.
Btw, Mrs. Palin’s kids should be left alone.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: Pretty much what Xion said.
I did not say you kill the State.
You don’t kill your junkyard dog; he has his job to do, which is to guard the perimeters, to keep the cats from eating each other, and to pee his corrosive brew on the car tires of any traveling salesmen who make it through the barbed wire.
But you don’t let him play with the children, either.
The powers and reach of the Federal government are pretty clearly enumerated (and very limited) in the Constitution, which (thanks to the Left and an increasingly infantile ‘give-me-my-bottle’ populace) is pretty much a dead document.
The State is entirely out of its cage in America – you really can’t call what we have merely a ‘government’ anymore.
It is truly a ‘State’, in all its imperial authority and power and reach and ambition.
The genie is out of the bottle, as I have remarked before. Once a welfare chattel/imperial State begins to grow, there is really nothing that will stop it internally; it is an irreversible process. Human nature does not change in that respect.
In that sense, the Left has probably already ‘won’, if by ‘winning’ we are talking about an eventual long and whimpering slide into a world somewhere between two Hells; Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World.
The best we can probably do is to delay the inevitable for a while, such that a few more poems will be written and a few more songs will be sung (well, poems and songs not subsidized and orchestrated by the State, you know).
Or maybe someone will invent a Star-Drive you can build in your garage. Liberty always flourishes best when there is a frontier – somewhere to run.
Anyway. Yes, as an example, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme – but now a necessary and completely irreversible Ponzi scheme; you can’t take grandma’s federal check away from her or she will starve, won’t she? Too many people depend on the largess of the State now for us to go back. The State now owns the people, Arcadia.
Thanks a lot.
It always amuses me when I see the Leftists on this blog (you included) rail against corporate machinations and capitalism – and I am no fan of international corporations.
Because the only real enemy to be really feared (if you know ANYTHING about history and human nature) is the State, pure and simple.
But, no, I have never advocated that the government (or really governments) in a Republic, run correctly and Constitutionally, does not have some very visible and very proper roles.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: Your statement FYI, almost no leftists today in the US or Europe are authoritarians. is absolute chicanery.
Every leftist is, by definition, a hard-core authoritarian (or more properly a ‘Statist’).
Let me edit your sentence to make it a bit more accurate:
Almost no Leftists today in the US or Europe admit that they are authoritarians.
Of course, Robespierre did not consider himself an authoritarian either, at least up until the bold flashing blade of his State came keening down from above and bestowed upon him a sudden and greater clarity.
Everyone except true anarchists have some degree of authoritarianism; how much depends on where you draw the line on the power of the government/State.
Historically and ideologically the Leftist tends toward Statism (i.e. maximum authoritarianism).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: I don’t really discuss you, whom I really do not know, of course.
I sometimes respond to the gestalt of your collected posts, I will admit – that is the ‘electronic’ you, I suppose, that I see and comprehend and do indeed respond to.
So, sometimes, to my discredit, I tend to view ‘you’ with the same detached ‘objectivity’ and in the same clinically amoral and casual ways as (for instance) you view a living child in a womb; i.e. as possibly malignant – but always as expendable.
In short: It is indeed interesting how each of us views – and responds to – our fellow human beings, is it not?
Report comment to moderator
Asking all the Palin-haters out there who insist that the left is treated in like manner…
Now I admit the right has it’s hacks who pick at the leftists. And there have been times when mountains have been made of molehiles….
But when was the last time a mountain of emails from your favorite leftist was furiously pawed through by major news outlets, and a horde of volunteers trying to find dirt? And.. I might add, didn’t find anything of note?
Never.
Report comment to moderator
One might even credibly suggest that the news outlets have a vendetta against Palin…
Report comment to moderator
#42 & others,
I disagree. While the bag is quite mixed, I think males in politics get just as much criticism as females and just as harsh and often just as cheap. It all depends on how you count criticism, who the critics are and the context of the criticism. I recall how harshly Rick Lazio was criticized in a debate against Hillary Clinton and he did absolutely nothing wrong except to approach her podium for a handshake or something. This was considered an aggressive act toward a “victimized” political female. Men in politics are often subjected to a different standard, and it is far too selective and subjective to prove either way.
The fact remains, ANY public woman can claim to have been criticized in any and every way because there are countless critics out there of all sorts and types (some even faking to be someone they are not, politically). So wise people consider the source. If, however, cheap criticism comes from an elected leader from a party or a highly placed person in that party, then you can start drawing implications about that party if the rest of them tolerate such cheap criticism from their leaders.
In short, locating some relative unknown out there or unelected mouth who criticized Hillary cheaply does not really count.
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile, while the controlled media (and the morons who believe the controlled media) paw through Sarah Palin’s emails, the corruption just bubbles on and on in the Obama administration:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56993.html
And politico is essentially a leftist web site. Maybe even leftists are getting tired of the stench of their own hypocrisy and brainless slander.
Nah.
That couldn’t be.
Report comment to moderator
Good post at #49, XION.
Report comment to moderator
One of the cheapest and most despicably unjustified criticisms I have heard from a politician came from Hillary Clinton toward General Patreaus (stating basically that he was not truthful and could not be believed), back when the Bush administration was still in office.
Report comment to moderator
MIM: <i.But when was the last time a mountain of emails from your favorite leftist was furiously pawed through by major news outlets, and a horde of volunteers trying to find dirt? And.. I might add, didn’t find anything of note?
Fair point, although the FOIA request that released them was made when she was a VP candidate and they would have been relevant then. That it took this long for them to actually be produced is suspicious (how do we know the time wasn’t used to go through them and remove potentially embarrassing ones?) but I will agree the level of interest is unseemly.
However, I also am quite sure that if 24,000 of Obama’s e-mails became publicly available, the media would do the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL – Whether electronic me or moniker me, you shouldn’t talk about me in such personal terms while adding so little to a topic. I’ve had my posts moderated for far milder rhetoric than you direct at me. You say you allow yourself to express personal contempt toward my blog person because that’s how you say I regard fetuses. That’s no excuse. For the record, you mischaracterize my views about life.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: For the record, you mischaracterize my views about life
How?
Are you suddenly disclaiming your very plainly stated views in past threads regarding what a child in a mother’s womb is – and is not?
I really don’t have the patience to go back and dredge up your more horrific statements – most people on this blog know what I am talking about. But if you suddenly want to play the game of hide and seek regarding your past stated virulent views on that particular subject, I am not interested.
Finally,
And you are a bit sensitive on what you call ‘personal’ comments, based on your own history (i.e. calling all social conservatives liars in #12, etc.) That does get my attention and raises a response, i will admit, since I am in that group.
For instance, from my standpoint, Leftists in general have the functional characteristics of leeches on the American political system – my opinion. And a Leftist is a person who trades liberty for authority, to the point of fawning and cravenness – my opinion. And a pro-abortionist is a person who supports the murder of children – a solid and totally irrefutable fact.
These are characteristics you either have, or you don’t have.
So perhaps I should then prefix every sentence I write with the disclaimer ‘if you are a leftist’, or ‘if you are a pro-abort’ – that sort of thing.
So you are simply more clever than me by a half, Scroop Moth. You wield your flail a bit more subtly, is all.
Report comment to moderator
Authoritarians come in both left and right varieties. Here, the authoritarians in our midst skew to one end of the spectrum. Most leftists in the USA and Europe are psychologically closer to the Dali Lama than to Stalin. I wish I were as confident about Evangelicals.
Hard leftists and right-wingers both have harbored dreams of a stateless society. Social democrats, on the other hand, tend to regard democratic political institutions as valuable assets, created with great difficulty, and not descended from heaven. Political structures are vulnerable to decay and they need tot be adapted to meet new challenges.
Historically the rise of states brought plusses and minuses. The competitive formation of states dramatically increased inequality and exploitation. On the other hand, modern states abolished slavery, conferred personal rights on women as more than objects of exchange, established property rights that were individual and alienable for the first time, and created the conditions for prosperity. We’re all “statists” now, on these terms. Hard left states have all abandoned collectivist agendas.
Report comment to moderator
I sort of sense something I could agree with in #66. The labels ‘left’ and ‘right’ are pretty stupid, and yet dominate academia and politics, much to the detriment of truth.
(I mean why is it that Fascism is considered by so-called intellectuals ‘right-wing’ and Soviet – or Sino – Socialism considered ‘left-wing’?) Functionally, they worked about the same, as States. The little guy died with a bullet in his brain, or holding a pick, or starved to death; the meaningless digressions of poly science professors mean nothing where the rubber hits the road, or the bullet meets the bone.
Anyway, a better and more meaningful scale would be based on an Anarchism to a Statism (or Authoritarianism) scale. The fact is that the modern leftist leans hard toward Statism (i.e. government control of individuals).
Where one falls on that scale is generally dependent on ones views of the Absolute (as in rights that are inalienable – or Absolute – based in a transcending morality, rather than rights that are simply granted by the State, and hence rooted in the transient power of one group over another).
Personally, I would rather my neighbor not kill me simply because he has a strong moral code rooted in a belief in the Absolute, rather than that he is simply afraid the State will punish him if he does kill me (loss of a productive serf, you see).
In such a case in which the moral code exists, I don’t even NEED the State, or any government at all.
Curious how Statists work to undermine the moral code – and busily set up the State to replace it.
Report comment to moderator
“However, I also am quite sure that if 24,000 of Obama’s e-mails became publicly available, the media would do the same thing.”
As if that would or will EVER happen.
And yes the media might actually take a look at them, but not with the fervor they’re showing now….
And they’d almost CERTAINLY come up with a “nugget”.
Report comment to moderator
Or two…..
hundred.
Report comment to moderator
There is some idiot out there in an editor’s office saying this:
“Hey chief, what say we go get Fred Thompson’s emails? Phone records from his Senate days?”
How about the email records of MIKE HUCKABEE??
Gov Jim Gilmore would have been ecstatic to turn over his emails.
No such thing as bad publicity, no???
Report comment to moderator
One of the cheapest and most despicably unjustified criticisms I have heard from a politician came from Hillary Clinton toward General Patreaus (stating basically that he was not truthful and could not be believed), back when the Bush administration was still in office.
Because a general would surely never put a positive spin on a certain set of facts when testifying before a Senate committee…
She didn’t call him a liar, she disagreed with his projections, which she considered to be unreasonably optimistic. Hence the comment about them requiring a “willing suspension of disbelief”.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_and_Crocker_requires_willing_suspension_of_disbelief.html
Report comment to moderator
Would someone PLEASE find Newt another girlfriend so he will STOP running for Pres.?!
Report comment to moderator
If Newt isn’t a RINO, his wife is.
Report comment to moderator
Probably why OBAMA LOCKED HIS STUFF UP.
He knew what they were going to do and he didn’t want it done to him.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry about Newtie. His money troubles will do him in.
Report comment to moderator
Drill/Scroop I would recommend the political compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Take the test — I’m more left and libertarian than the Dalia Lhama.
I just watched the Tillman Story. Watching the generals giving their testimony to Congress is enough to convince anyone to take what a general says with a grain of salt.
Newt’s not running for president — he’s on a book tour.
Report comment to moderator
Drill #60
Good post on OBAMA’s hypocrisy. I wish we would be able to jail these politicians for doing this. It appears that he is one of the worst, but the others should be nailed as well.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: I started to take the test but then realized it was a contrived crock.
For instance, take the first question: “If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.”
What is meant by ’serving humanity’?
To a modern-day Leftist, ’serving humanity’ means the equitable distribution of daily rations of soma, or perhaps the enforcement of a mandatory abortion policy, aimed at controlling population to ‘manageable’ levels.
To me, ’serving humanity’ would mean ensuring liberty (as originally meant by the Bill of Rights) and ensuring freedom from State oppression/coercion.
Funny how the ‘test’ is not focused on Statism as the real problem – but instead leads off with an asinine Leftwing talking point about ‘corporations’, which are an excessively minor side-show in terms of filling the cup of human suffering and anguish.
Go figure.
You are a Statist, HRW, pure and simple, or, as your comrade Scroop Moth would say, an Authoritarian. And about as Libertarian (or Anarchist) as a minor ideologue in the Political Division of a 1930’s Soviet think tank. Bank on it.
No contrived meaningless rigged set of moronic Orwell-speak questions changes that reality, sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Well said!
Report comment to moderator
Is anybody surprised that a use of the phrase “serving humanity” evokes so much antipathy from the Evangelical right?
I am! They did not use to be like this.
My father received a “service to society” award from a well-known Evangelical college. I attended the luncheon in the gymnasium. He got a rocking chair and his name on a plaque. Now reading DRILL’s posts makes me more grateful to those kind and gentle old Christians. We heard no lectures about libertarian opposition to “statists.”
That was a while ago. Perhaps today alumni receive “service to society” awards for their libertatian opposition to “statists.” I doubt it, however, judging from the tenor of members of the third generation of my family to attend that institution.
When I was a student at the college, Francis Schaeffer gave a series of talks which many people regarded as painfully eccentric, hysterical, and philosophically half-baked. His cultural criticisms were ignorant and outdated, even before he became Bachmann’s Aristotle.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I am touched. Nicest thing Scroop Moth ever said about me.
So my posts bring latent (and fond) memories roiling to the surface of the bubbling, boiling, ever-writhing stew, which burbles and hisses within the dark-ribbed, iron-bound cauldron of his brain.
I can only say that I am grateful that I can be of some service (however problematic) here.
But, even if Scroop Moth insists, I must quite firmly decline any ‘Service to Society’ award which consists of a rocking chair and my name engraved on a plaque, thank you very much.
I will, however, gladly accept such an award, if it comes with something more useful, like a box of 30-30 Winchester shells and some decent night-vision goggles.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t insist, but I’m sure there are Evangelical (I don’t say Christian) organizations that would be delighted go give DRILL amo.
Report comment to moderator
Ammo or a case of blackberry wine or an original edition of The Road to Serfdom.
Or a good coon dog that leaves chickens alone and stays out of the wife’s flowerbeds.
Whichever.
Thanks in advance.
Report comment to moderator
Sure its a bit contrived. All questionaires are. Try taking some psych questionaires – they’re even worse, the autism spectrum disorder is easy to manipulate. However, your response to to serving humanity allows the quiz to place you on the right for economic questions. Perhaps if you continued the test you would come upon the questions which separate the Statist from the Anarachist
Its somewhat ironic that you invoke Orwell — next to my initials, there’s a small picture of the new cover to 1984. And if you want to understand my political views — read Homage to Catalonia — Orwell’s description of the Spanish Civil War,
Report comment to moderator
I took the test over again — the question Drill is upset over is the first one. Really — were you just looking for an excuse. I curious where you would land as you accuse others of Statism and yet I continue to a be full fledged member of the libertarian left.
Report comment to moderator
What the MSM is doing to Sara P reminds me of what they did to Dan Q.
#6 SAWGUNNER. You nailed it. VP Biden has such a large quantity embarrassment points to choose from and they suppress the information. The bias of the MSM is so powerful it’s no wonder we get such poor quality office holders. It takes a very brave person to wade into political waters as a conservative. You have to work harder because of the mud the MSM is putting extra effort into finding. A conservative with a small pebble in their past makes a bigger splash with the MSM than a concrete block in a liberals.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Not really, I went through a couple of pages of questions before I got fed up with it being a push-poll. I owe you that, anyway, as you contribute generally good posts and a different perspective to this blog.
(Although your fascination with calling yourself a Libertarian/ anarchist when you have consistently supported State control in every political, social, and economic venue discussed here is sort of mysterious and touching – the only issues you might be considered to lean libertarian/anarchist on are issues involving personal morality, which is typical of a modern-day Statist in any event. Perhaps shades of Brave New World.)
Regards the test – I mean, even the seemingly neutral questions, like “No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.” and “I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.” suffer from a lamentable lack of definition of terms, at best.
I can be proud of my country is some respects, and not in others; it would be foolish to be proud of one’s country sometimes, but clearly not foolish other times.
And ’support for my country’ is poorly defined – if she is driven into error by the State, then I am actually supporting her by not supporting the political establishment that controls her.
Too many imponderables.
Last example, “Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified”.
This is really a stupid one.
International law can be right or wrong, depending on how it was passed, who passed it, the agenda behind passing it, etc.. Presumably, even you (who dote on internationalist Statism-style solutions, would agree with that. So another way of stating this (which would give radically different results for essentially the same statement) would be “It is possible for international law to be wrong”.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!