Cruel Conservatives

Filed under: Conservatism, Progressivism — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 30, 2007 @ 3:04 pm CEST

Pete Abel asks: “Why do benevolent conservatives (and yes, they do exist) tolerate the prominent, malicious voices that have become the spokespeople and hence caricature of the movement?”

His answer: “So back to the question of why hateful voices are tolerated in the conservative movement. In part, they’re tolerated because they speak for a significant, election-making swath of hateful conservative voters.

Then again, that’s only half the answer. The other half is rarely acknowledged or confronted, even in private.”

He published ‘part 2′, in which he gives the other half of the answer at his own blog: ”
The Other Made’s are the inheritors of the Self Made’s fortunes, large, medium, and modest. They grew up listening to the Self Made’s muttering around the dinner table about bums and moochers, and even if they eventually became bums and moochers themselves, they did it off their parents’ money, damn it, not the “guhvment’s.”

And thus collectively, many Self Made and Other Made conservatives tolerate hateful voices because they suspect there might just be a grain of truth in the haters’ words.”

Good reasoning but I think that he forgets to mention one thing, one reason why some, less aggressive, conservatives tolerate cruel conservatives: because being hateful works.

Attacking one’s ideological opponents works. Negative ads work and in the end… less aggressive conservatives want to win.

O, and, this is also applicable on progressives.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 Mikef

March 30, 2007 @ 6:22 pm CEST

Exactly. Politicians don’t suffer any consequences for attacking their opponents, even when the attacks are outrageous. That’s why we see constant references to “Nazis”, “traitors” and “terrorists” leveled at rivals.

2 Dan Schneider

March 30, 2007 @ 8:28 pm CEST

If you look at that whole post and the comments Mike, it’s interesting to see how so very few people actually argue points. All their arguments, practically, are with straw men, as they distort things the others say.

This is the worst part of blogs, even more so than nastiness; when sincere points are made, and ignored, so someone can screed at another screeder.