Mental Illness and Liberalism

According to the news, nearly 1 in 5 Americans had mental illness in 2009. And how many Americans self-identify as liberals?

About 20 percent.

Just sayin'.

Why Liberals Are Full of CrapDon't Understand Conservatives

If you read this, you'll understand the demogoguery of liberal ideology.

Can't argue facts and philosophy with a conservative? Argue they support feudalism! Yes, you got that right: liberals are now arguing that conservatives want to return to the days of kings, squires, and vassals. Why? Because, apparently, conservatives believe everyone should work for as little money as possible.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Well, that's not really why conservatives are against government taking money from some people to give to others. Conservatives appreciate the independence and self-esteem working gives people. As opposed to taking a government check, earning your living gives you freedom and choices.

Contrary to the strawman this author erected, conservatives don't want people to work for as little money as possible. In fact, they want people to make as much money as they can. The difference is that conservatives recognize that the way to make the most money you can is through your own work and initiative, and that's something the government can't give you.

•Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

No, the reason conservatives support free trade is that free trade provides more people the opportunity to earn their own money, start their own companies, and do what they want. Rather than languishing in poverty, free trade helps people escape poverty.

•Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

I guess if you don't think babies are people, you might consider them only as a burden to their mothers, rather than people.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Conservatives recognize that unions force individuals to follow the union's directives. This means not doing anything the union won't allow the individual to do. That means less initiative and less promotion on one's own merits. Worse, unions inevitably strike because they aren't getting gigantic raises in economic downturns (such as now) regardless of how the strike affects ordinary citizens. See strikes for transportation and even healthcare workers as examples of what unions bring every place they go. Unions are designed to prevent workers from working hard or efficiently. They are designed to provide the least work out of workers for the most money they can command. That's bad for consumers because it drives up costs and it's bad for business because it makes it more expensive to hire people. The result? Fewer workers and more expensive goods.

The arguments get more ridiculous from here. Believe it or not, the author argues that conservatives don't like prosperity. No, really. Why? Because conservatives disliked every government program designed to redistribute wealth.

These pathetic attempts to argue that conservatives are greedy bastards show how little liberals have to show for their philosophy. Pathetic.

Some Nice Blogosphere Navel Gazing

It's been a while since we've had some good spitting matches between journalists, blogers, conservatives and liberals, but for some reason, there's a couple of them today.

First, there's the David Frum's whining cuz he can't play with the big kids dust-up at Right Wing News. Apparently, Frum has his knickers in a twist because John Hawkins doesn't consider him a conservative and won't add him to the Blogads conservative hive. I can understand why Frum is upset; unless he's recognized as a conservative by conservatives, his credibility as such is shot. Of course, he did that to himself some time ago when he bashed Republicans for actually supporting Americans' right to not choke on Obamacare. Now, Frum has taken to complaining that it's only "the fringe" who dislike him. This is patent nonsense. I like to read Frum but only to find out what left-leaning Republicans think. As Hawkins points out, liberals love Frum, which is enough reason for any conservative to be skeptical.

The second dustup is between sock puppet Glenn Greenwald and conservative Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm less engaged on this one, mostly because I consider Mr. Sockpuppet to be too boring to read. His sycophants have invaded poor Joe Klein's space, so if you want to hear what the sockpuppet has to say, read the comments (have I used the word "sockpuppet" enough in one post?).

Matthew Yglesias Is Scared about the Unemployment Rate...

But doesn't offer any solutions.

It's unsurprising that leftwingers have no ideas about how to increase employment. They don't really like employers very much.

Liberal Utopia in Academia Creates Worst Work Conditions?

Megan McArdle has a piece up about the terrible treatment of adjunct professors and graduate students at universities. The truth is, as anyone taking an English 101 or Algebra course knows, the vast majority of classes at universities these days are not taught by actual tenured professors but by the slave labor of the university system: those who haven't a prayer of gaining tenure.

I'd feel sorrier for them if the bizarre system that allows professors to use arbitrary grading systems and subject students to leftwing rants on unrelated topics weren't so damn cushy for them, or if those not in that system didn't so closely resemble the real world, but, alas, I do not feel sorry for them at all. Welcome to the real world, champ!

I have long theorized that at least some of the leftward drift in academia can be explained by the fact that it has one of the most abusive labor markets in the world. I theorize this because in interacting with many professors, I am bewildered by their beliefs about labor markets more generally; many seem to think of private labor markets as an endless well of exploitation where employees are virtual prisoners with no recourse in the face of horrific abuses. Yet this does not describe the low wage jobs in which I've worked--there were of course individuals who had to hold onto that particular job for idiosyncratic reasons, but as a class, low wage workers do not face the kind of monolithic employer power that a surprising number of academics seem to believe is common.

A recent debate among friends brought forth similar arguments from lefties about the poor and middle class being mistreated by employers (for giving them jobs, I suppose) while the mean ol' CEO and stockholders make billions. It's not fair! How can anybody shop at Wal-Mart in good conscience knowing they buy food from Brazil, for crying out loud? Aren't those clerks and stock boys miserable?

The answer, of course, is that some are miserable but probably not because of their employment. Like most people who work for their income, there are aspects of their jobs they like and others they don't. And most employees are perfectly aware of the tenuousness of their positions, particularly if you live in an at-will employment state.

But such knowledge doesn't make workers more miserable or less productive. In fact, given the behavior of most tenured professors on college campuses, it probably makes those without tenure more responsive to those they teach. But that's just my theory.

David Frum vs. Conservatives

Jonathan Rauch has an interesting profile of David Frum, liberals' favorite conservative.

Ever since Frum started bashing conservatives, he has become a darling of the left, even though he couldn't be called "liberal" in any sense of that word. I actually agree with much of what Frum has been touting: Republicans have to come up with new ideas to cope with modern problems rather than simply relying on conservative solutions from the past. Regardless of their efficacy, those solutions appear shopworn to a new generation after 30 years of Republican ideas.

Frum is on a mission to penetrate Fox World with a message from reality. In Fox World, he says, Obama is a radical ideologue determined to impose European-style socialism on the United States; in reality, he is a pragmatic consensus-seeker who gets his ideas from the Left but wants to win re-election with 60 percent of the vote. In Fox World, Americans in the millions are rising up to protest Obama's expansion of government; in reality, many Americans are distressed by the economy and will simmer down when prosperity returns.

In Fox World, liberals have wrecked the country; in reality, 21st-century America is better in almost every way than the America of 1975 or 1955. In Fox World, people such as Palin and the conservative talking heads Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck speak for the overlooked American middle; in reality, they speak for a fringe, one big enough to make them rich but not to elect anyone to national office.

In Fox World, all we need to do is just stop doing what we're doing right now; in reality, conservatives need a specific program for governing. In Fox World, health care reform is ripe for repeal; in reality, Republicans have gotten themselves stuck with it for years to come.

I don't disagree with much of this. When one becomes too insular, getting one's news and information from only one side, for example, it can lead to skewed thinking. And when Frum complains that too many conservatives would rather be right (from the outside) than govern from the center-right, he's on target. The rise of the intellectual right has done much of this, but Frum's general argument that Republicans in Congress should be working with President Obama--and thus giving him the cover of bipartisanship--is simply wrong. Democrats were smart to go hard to the left in 2006, giving voters a clear difference between the two parties. If GOPers compromise too much with Obama and Pelosi, there is little reason for voters to change directions and elect Republicans.

I think Republicans are right to talk about repealing what they can of Obamacare in the fall. But Republicans must also begin offering new alternatives to HopeNChange, or else their return to power will be short-lived.

Paternalism By Any Other Name...

The Rise of the New Paternalism

In seminal journal articles... you’ll find a panoply of policy proposals from mild to downright intrusive. The story begins with the seemingly innocuous proposal to enroll all employees in savings plans automatically (with the ability to opt out). Then it progresses to new default rules in contracts, such as a presumption of “for cause” rather than “at will” employment, again with an opt-out. And then? Default rules that can be waived only through a cumbersome legal procedure. Then default rules with some options ruled out entirely — such as maximum hours that cannot be waived for less than time-and-a-half pay. Then cooling-off periods for high-cost purchases. Then sin taxes for fatty or sodium-rich foods. Then outright bans on ingredients like trans fats.

Not every new paternalist supports every one of these policies, and they don’t advocate them all with the same confidence. But they’re all on the list, and all justified by an appeal to behavioral economics.

Obamacare is just the beginning. But it does provide supporters with moral superiority.

Obama's EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

Another "moderate" Obama nominee expresses outrageous opinions that could have the effect of law if their appointment stands.

Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006...

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

The least Obama could do is pick people who had actually read the Constitution before expounding on it.

Charles Johnson Explains Why He Parted Ways with Right Wing Nuts

Only to show what a nut he is.

His list includes broadbrush smears at virtually every possible conservative person, group, or political philosophy and jumbles any criticism of President Obama with witch doctor pictures. I'm not kidding. Just ask him.

Of course, he'd be pissed if you pointed out the same behaviors for eight years by the guys he's identifying with now. But that was then, I suppose.

Jules Crittenden explains why Johnson went batshit crazy.

William Jacobson puts it in a nutshell:

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs says he's parting ways with the right because people who disagree with him are fascist, racist, homophobic, white supremacists.

That about covers it.

Tom Maguire notes that Johnson used to be an Islamophobic hate site according to his new friends. But that was sooo 2004.

Robert Stacy McCain revels in being castigated by name, then explains the madness of King Charles.

Much more at Memeorandum.

The Shoe on the Other Foot

Several of my left-leaning friends are having an unpleasant awakening of conscience these days, concerning their criticism and mockery of George W. Bush. The awakening comes in watching a president they like and admire, Barack Obama, be treated to the same sort of unrealistic standards that they themselves were only too happy to place on a Republican president.

The most recent incident concerns President Obama's response to Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood. Obama had his own"My Pet Goat" moment that earned him the derision of the right, even as the left tried valiantly to claim that it wasn't the same thing at all.

Indeed, one could argue that President Obama's nonchalance at the killing of 13 American soldiers is worse than President Bush's deer-in-the-headlights look at the moment he was told about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. We weren't permitted to see President Obama's initial reaction to the news from Fort Hood, but we can conclude from his speech, in which it was a higher priority to praise politics than get right to a statement about Fort Hood, that he didn't consider it a high enough priority.

But I digress.

My liberal friends have been feeling decidedly uncomfortable given President Obama's behavior in the wake of these events and the way he has been criticized for it. Take this story on the fact that President Obama doesn't plan to attend celebrations in Germany commemmorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is taking aim at President Obama's decision not to travel to Germany next week to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the latest in a string of conservatives to criticize Obama's decision to skip the ceremony on November 9...

While the president had originally planned to be on hand for the event, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed earlier this week scheduling conflicts and preparation for his impending 10-day trip to Asia have instead caused Obama to stay in Washington.

I have to admit that not going to Berlin to remember the end of communism is peculiar for any sitting American president. And because of "scheduling conflicts" and the fact that he "needed to prepare" for his trip to Asia? We were promised that this oh-so-smart president could basically do everything. Call him the male version of the old Enjoli ad. It's no wonder people are starting to grumble.

It's tough when your guy is running the country, no doubt. It should make liberals pause before bashing the next Republican president. But it won't.

The Death of Conservatism...NOT

From Charles Krauthammer.

So Much for that "Death of Conservatism" Stuff

Conservatives maintain edge as top ideological group.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Proving, Yet Again, That the Far Left and Far Right Have More In Common Than Folks Want to Admit

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

Yesterday, I noted yesterday that the nuts need to stop with suggestions about assassinations, impeachments and coups. That opinion was aimed at idiots on the right. Today, we have idiots on the Left fantasizing about the same thing, proving, yet again, that the Far Left and Far Right are much closer in their thinking than either party (and their bloggers) like to admit.

I'm always a little fascinated with those who dream about violent takeovers of the government from either their own political side or the other side. I guess it satisfies these people's inner Bolshevik or something. But Americans have never really shown much interest in that sort of thing, and I don't think there are enough nutters out there to pull off a coup. Why bother? We have elections in about 16 months and you can throw out a whole bunch of the idiots you dislike then. It's not a monarchy, after all.

Dr. Melissa Clouthier recommends that everyone just chill. Ed Morrissey shows that both sides have their nuts.

Hollywood Supports Pedophiles

It was a bit nausea-inducing to read about Hollywood creatures ginning up support for pedophile Roman Polanski, who might actually be forced to face trial for rapind and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl here in the States.

Well, why should they care about Polanski's private life, right? It's his "choice," isn't it? We really should keep the courts out of the bedroom, after all.

Or, better yet, Let's blame the mothers for Polanski's monstrous behavior. I mean, if a mother "thrusts" her child at him, why should Polanski show any restrait and recognize that 13 is way too young for a 44-year-old man to have sex with?

The Left, apparently, isn't bothered by child rape, but more concerned about the L.A. district attorney pursuing the case at a time of budget cuts. Because, you know, f*cking your 13-year-old was just consensual sex, I suppose.

UPDATE: Mollie at GetReligion adds this to the rape apologists:

There’s this odd clip from The View where Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain that Polanski merely raped the girl, not “raped-raped” her. Because apparently giving a 13-year-old alcohol and Quaaludes and repeatedly refusing to comply with her demands that you stop orally, vaginally and anally raping her isn’t “rape-rape.”

This reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton's "it wasn't sex" defenders.

UPDATE x2: Smitty at The Other McCain points out the similarities in defense of Polanski and Ted Kennedy.

UPDATE x3: Here is Patterico's post on Whoopi Goldberg's declaration that anally raping a 13-year-old child isn't "rape-rape," plus a transcript of the 13-year-old's testimony.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

Propaganda for Your Schools

"One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy."

That's from Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, who died at the age of 95.

In the late 1960s, most experts were speaking of imminent global famines in which billions would perish. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."

But Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of crash program that Ehrlich declared wouldn't work. Their dwarf wheat varieties resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties. In 1965, they had begun a massive campaign to ship the miracle wheat to Pakistan and India and teach local farmers how to cultivate it properly. By 1968, when Ehrlich's book appeared, the U.S. Agency for International Development had already hailed Borlaug's achievement as a "Green Revolution."

Contrary to Ehrlich's predictions, we haven't suffered huge famines. Food is actually more abundant and cheaper than ever in history. The world has truly lost a great man.

Liberal Boogeymen

Robert Stacy McCain has a nice piece in the American Spectator discussing the liberal need for "boogeymen" to explain any rejection of liberals or liberal ideas.

All this watchdogging indicates a paranoid tendency among soi-disant "progressives," a fear that has its source in their own ideology. To the liberal True Believer, "rugged individualism" is not a lifestyle nor an attitude, but rather a false myth propagated by Republicans for political purposes. The liberal cannot admit that ballets and operas would exist without taxpayer support from the National Endowment of the Arts, nor that a family could provide for its health-care needs without government subsidies and bureaucratic superintendence.

Therefore, it never occurs to liberals that their political antagonists are capable of independent thought and action in the field of communications. If Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, Glenn Reynolds and Ann Coulter say similar things about any particular phenomenon -- e.g., the media's absurdly hagiographic tributes to Ted Kennedy -- this can only reflect a purposeful coordination of effort. Somewhere, there must be some right-wing Gepetto pulling the strings...

Instead of considering the role of individual responsibility, the liberal habitually attributes all human misery to nebulous forces of evil -- greed, discrimination, "Corporate America" and so forth -- which serve as ready-made scapegoats in liberal demonology. Occasionally, when these reliable bogeymen lose their power to terrify the gullible, liberals will conjure up new demons -- global warming, suburban sprawl, Halliburton -- representing the evils from which liberals courageously offer to rescue the helpless citizenry.

The refocus of blame from individuals for their behavior to "society" (or some segment thereof) is liberal gold and very attractive. We've heard the siren call of victimhood on a variety of fronts: poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and so on. In every case, the individual is not a victim of his own bad choices, but a victim of some evil Other.

No doubt, there are individuals who are poor through no fault of their own. But much of poverty is attributable to behaviors that the individual can control (dropping out of school, for instance, or becoming pregnant). It is the failure to recognize the power individuals should and do hold over their own lives that allows liberals to blame anyone and everyone for "societal" ills than the person who is that ill.

Easier to Call Your Adversary Crazy Than Understand the Debate

This article does a good job of bringing together all the leftwing disinformation regarding Republicans in one place. Namely,

1. Republicans are racist.

2. Republicans all think Barack Obama is a Muslim/racist/not eligible to be president.

3. Republicans lie about health care reform and "death panels" because they are both stupid and evil liars.

4. Republicans are evil money-grubbers in the pocket of corporations.

5. Republicans don't care about the poor.

This is, unfortunately, not an uncommon phenomenon, but that doesn't make it any less outrageous or disgusting. Consider this section on why racist Republicans didn't want Obama as president.

The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.

When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

See, Republicans didn't oppose Obama because the policies he proposed sounded harmful to the American economy and an affront to American independence (not to mention his hopelessly naive and dangerous foreign policy). It was because they are white and he is black. Who could have missed it?

Then there's this:

This trend has reached its apotheosis this summer with the Republican Party now claiming en masse that Obama wants to set up "death panels" to euthanise the old and disabled. Yes: Sarah Palin really has claimed – with a straight face – that Barack Obama wants to kill her baby.

Barack Obama has championed the idea of expert panels to determine "best practices" and help control costs for health care. It's not paranoid for a person with a disabled child to be concerned that "controlling health care costs" and regulating which treatments and procedures will be covered will end up in health care rationing. Those with special needs children know better than anyone what it's like to argue and wrestle to get the best care for one's child. The idea that an impersonal government bureaucrat will have the final say is something we should be concerned about. It's not like this doesn't happen in other countries.

But then, there's this:

You have to admire the audacity of the right. Here's what's actually happening. The US is the only major industrialised country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves – and 50 million people can't afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can't access the care they require. That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year. Yet the Republicans have accused the Democrats who are trying to stop all this death by extending healthcare of being "killers" – and they have successfully managed to put them on the defensive.

This paragraph is so packed with lies and disinformation as to be breathtaking. There's nothing wrong with adults taking care of their own health care needs, as opposed to some government entity doing it. Individuals know better what will work for them, and governmental one-size-fits-all plans won't fit all.

And then there's that bizarre 50 million figure, one not used by anyone anywhere. Where did the author get it? Probably from his fertile imagination, right next to the "they think America is white-skinned and that's why they didn't want a black man as president" fantasy. The figure that usually gets bandied about is 46 million, and even that includes a lot of people who are here illegally (10 million), people who make enough to buy their own care (about 20 million) as well as people who aren't eligible for government medical programs and can't get insurance through other channels.

Besides the fallacious 50 million number, there's the 18 million number this author uses. Where does that come from? I found this site which uses the 18 million figure from the Institute of Medicine. But that figure doesn't just include people who died because a disease was not diagnosed until it was too late to treat. They are including people with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. These people argue that preventative screening such as mammography and pap smears are not available to the uninsured, but that's not true. Free or low cost pap smears are available at local county health departments and at women's clinics (such as Planned Parenthood). And low cost or free mammograms are available as well.

Demonizing your political opponents, calling them crazy, smearing them as uneducated and racist are all part of the playbook of the Left. Unfortunately, too many people are buying these arguments.

UPDATE: At least Johann Hari has a more nuanced take than Amanda Marcotte, who thinks it's all just white people afraid a black president is going to use health care reform to steal from white people to give to black people. H/T: Chuck Serio.

The nutty white people grasp that non-white Americans are more likely to be uninsured than white Americans. Put this information into a paranoid brain that believes in a zero sum game and what you get is this conclusion: In order to pay for more non-white people to get health care, some white people are going to have to die to save money. And that’s why they’re scared. But if they weren’t so f*cking racist, they wouldn’t be scared.

This is about the dumbest (and most racist) thing I've seen lately. But then, I haven't been over to Pandagon in a couple of weeks.

The Crazies Are All on the Right

According to Rick Perlstein.

So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.

Perlstein goes on to attach every crazy, evil, racist conspiracy group to the right. Conveniently, he forgets about every nutjob group the left has ever produced. But fortunately for him, Steve Bainbridge makes a short list for him, including the Weathermen, Code Pink, Act Up and the eco-terrorists ALF and ELF. I had a short discussion (I left) with a friend where I also included the nuclear winter believers of the 1980s, the winter soldier liars of the Vietnam era, and the actual communists who supported overthrowing the American government.

The stunning part about Perlstein's argument is that so many people want desperately to believe that there are no crazies on their side of the political spectrum. But there are always extremists in each party. They don't represent the vast majority of Americans.

But what's worse is Perlstein's (and many Democrats') attempts to paint normal, everyday Americans who are concerned about Obamacare as Nazis, thugs, astroturfers, mobs, un-patriotic and downright evil people. They aren't any of these things. What they are is involved.