Trans-National Con-servatism

It's not just here in Trumpistan. Authoritarian far Right Con-servatism is a global pathology, infecting large swaths of humanity with resentment, fear and hate.

For a change, I thought I'd analyze one of the Right's Canadian propagandists who is more clever and articulate, and offers a smoother pitch than the echo chamber of low-brow, hate spewing, white nationalist thuggish Americans like Limbaugh, Breitbart and FOX(R).

Peterson is intelligent, and he presents a calm and rational demeanor. These attributes are perfect for propagandists who target an audience outside the base. As numerous youtube videos indicate, Peterson, like Ben Shapiro, can easily outmaneuver less bright or emotional college students, their favorite prey for indoctrination.

Peterson had to frame conservative limits of intolerance with a Jew denouncing Nazis and William Buckley, "because Buckley, when he put out his conservative magazine, the David Duke types kind of attached themselves to it, and he said, “No, here’s the boundary. You guys are on the wrong side of the boundary. I’m not with you.” And Ben Shapiro recently did this, for example, as well in the aftermath of the Charlottesville incident."

Well Buckley's long gone, and he sure as hell would not have voted for Trump or denied climate science. And for obvious reasons there are not many white nationalist Jews. But like Ben Stein, they love to play their "commie card" against liberals. And they have their share of far Right authoritarian personalities in Israel, like the corrupt Netanyahu and his Likud Party.

Con-servatism isn't necessarily anti-Semitic or white nationalist. Their bigotry extends outward from their particular group. We have Nation of Islam bigots in the US. And I've never seen a European white nationalist, or Canadian such as Peterson, attack universal healthcare as some fatal leap into Stalinism. Those are just manifestations defined by the native culture and geography of the con. They are still authoritarian to the core. They all fear and demonize liberals, progressivism, equality, and multi-culturalism. They all have more difficulty with different cultures, the unknown, nuance, ambiguity, and uncertainty.

It's not just an American disorder. It is global. It is why there is war, and institutionalized bigotry and cruelty. Right wing British amygdalas are just as over-active as Right wing American amygdalas. This has been measured.

Canadian Con-Servatism?

Con-servatism, like white nationalism, is hardly native to only the United States. Other forms of extremist far Right ideology span the globe. 

I’ve spent a lot of time discussing the modern American far Right and its innate anti-democratic, anti-general welfare, anti-regulatory, and anti-tax positions. 

I’ve shown they are against all of these provisions that are embedded into our Constitution, because none of them adhere to their opinions and world-view. 

Yet somehow they deem themselves to be the only “true” Constitutionalists.

Let’s step back and take a broader look at a proponent of conservatism from outside the US, and see how he adheres to, or differs from, his American cousins.

Prominent conservative Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson represents such a respected voice of conservatism, at least to fellow travelers on both sides of the border.

He takes two important positions that conform with the American far Right. He said he would have voted for Trump, but admitted Hillary was more conservative regarding the status quo. This moves him beyond the domain of traditional conservatism. 

His other significant ideological position is denial of global warming. "You can't trust the (global warming) data because too much ideology is involved". 

Interestingly he seems unconcerned with the peer review process of science, and the political ideology of the Republican Party and their polluting corporate owners.

Now we’ve established some similarities in American and Canadian con-servative beliefs.

Next, we’ll examine Peterson’s perspective on other ideological positions.

As I have documented abundantly, the Right loves to define the Left. Often this requires them to unilaterally define terms. Peterson is no exception.

In this case we have Peterson’s discussion of:

“The fatal flaw lurking in American leftist politics: What is liberal America's big, and possibly fatal, mistake? Failing to recognize its own extremists.”

He knows just what's wrong with our thinking. True to form he quickly conflates American liberals with Marxist ideologues:

“But the force that’s driving the activism is mostly the Marxism rather than the post-modernism. It’s more like an intellectual gloss to hide the fact that a discredited economic theory is being used to fuel an educational movement and to produce activists.”

In other words, the same old “Commies control higher education” hysteria.

He employs this tunnel vision to reach the conclusion that “the Left” wants to impose a Russian or Chinese style communist dictatorship. In fact, the Left strongly supports voter rights,  democracy, and fair representation. Somehow that is ignored.

He went so far as to invoke French Marxists from the 1960s as counterparts to American progressives. Same old same old. Liberals are just commies or commie wannbes.

There’s so much evidence that had come pouring in from the former Soviet Union, from the Soviet Union at that point, and from Maoist China, of the absolutely devastating consequences of the doctrine that it was impossible to be apologetic for it by that point in time.

So the French intellectuals in particular just pulled off a sleight of hand and transformed Marxism into post-modern identity politics. And we’ve seen the consequence of that. It’s not good. It’s a devolution into a kind of tribalism that will tear us apart on the Left and on the Right.”

It’s interesting how selective he needs be in order to ignore FOX(R) and hate radio’s responsibility in their own identity politics and tribalism that is tearing us apart. 

Damn those French intellectuals!

Let’s go with Mirriam-Webster’s definition of Identity Politics: “politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.”

Dare I suggest the white nationalism of Trump’s base is “identity politics”? Ignoring this appears to be more selective interpretation. Or is it just simple projection?

Peterson goes on to suggest the Right has boundaries of decency the Left ignores. Um, Trump???

Never mind. He wants to make this point:

On the Right, I think we’ve identified markers for people who have gone too far in their ideological presuppositions. And it looks to me like the marker we’ve identified is racial superiority. I think we’ve known that probably since the end of World War II, but we saw a pretty good example of it in the 1960s with William Buckley, because Buckley, when he put out his conservative magazine, the David Duke types kind of attached themselves to it, and he said, ‘No, here’s the boundary. You guys are on the wrong side of the boundary. I’m not with you.’ And Ben Shapiro recently did this, for example, as well in the aftermath of the Charlottesville incident.

Of course we’d expect a conservative Jew to condemn Nazis.

So what’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, “No, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion.”

Right. Except the racist birther he would have voted for called those in the Tiki Parade, “very fine people”. Trump denied knowing who David Duke was, and only after public outcry, he reluctantly “disavowed” him. And that man is supported by his party and over a third of the country.

And what about the lack of basic human decency and honesty on the Right? Apparently Trump’s endless stream of lies and threats to lock up his opponent are not “outside the domain of acceptable opinion.”

Let’s look at that projection again:

What is liberal America's big, and possibly fatal, mistake? Failing to recognize its own extremists.

Peterson continues:

Now here’s the issue: We know that things can go too far on the Right and we know that things can go too far on the Left. But we don’t know what the markers are for going too far on the Left.

At least he admits he doesn’t know, so that’s being honest.

How difficult would it be for him to find liberals condemning violent protests? How difficult would it be for him to find liberals condemning Stalinism, Maoism and communist dictators?

Does he think we advocate for that? Is his field of vision that narrow? 

Apparently. “Liberals are commies” is much easier to suggest to the willfully blind ideologues on the Right.

And I would say that it’s ethically incumbent on those who are liberal or Left-leaning to identify the markers of pathological extremism on the Left and to distinguish themselves from the people who hold those pathological viewpoints. And I don’t see that that’s being done. And I think that’s a colossal ethical failure, and it may doom the liberal-Left project.

Perhaps he doesn’t WANT to see it. I would suggest that is a “colossal ethical failure” on his part. And Trump gets a pass...

To his credit, Peterson does want to show us he “gets it”.

The Lefties have their point. They’re driven fundamentally by a horror of inequality and the catastrophes that inequality produces—and fair enough, because inequality is a massive social force and it does produce, it can produce, catastrophic consequences. So to be concerned about that politically is reasonable. But we do know that that concern can go too far... The doctrine of equality of outcome.

And where is this “doctrine” proposed? Apparently demanding equal pay for women doing the same work as men “can go too far”.

You cannot win if you play identity politics. (Trump did just that.) There’s a bunch of reasons like—here’s one: “Let’s push for equality of outcome.” All right, who measures it? “A bureaucracy.” You have to set up a bureaucratic inquisition to ensure that that’s the case...An example of equality of outcome are attempts being made now to implement the legislative necessity to eliminate the gender pay gap. You have to set up a bureaucratic inquisition to ensure that that’s the case.

In the case of the gender pay gap, a paycheck measures it. As with minimum wages, simple legislation would ensure it. Nobody I know is advocating “a bureaucracy” to measure it. In fact it is already measured.

It seems the word “equality” threatens the Right. As it should, They have a long history of enforcing voter inequality, income inequality, economic inequality, and social inequality.

If “equality of outcome” is limited to equal pay for equal work, we are guilty. It’s just basic fairness. But propagandists on the Right have gone so far as to accuse the Left of wanting "equality of outcome" as equal pay across all occupations.

They’re dishonest and/or delusional, of course. And that is the fatal flaw in conservative ideology.

Case Studies In Post-Truth Con-servatism

The avid exchange of comments in the thread under “Post-Truth Con-servatism” has expanded our study of the American Right’s world view.  I sincerely thank our con-servative friends for their efforts to communicate their beliefs.

We've explored how debate employing facts and logic, as well as reasoned discussion, are so difficult for the far Right mindset. We've seen how they regard right wing opinion as fact. It requires only belief, not supporting evidence.

To encourage fair discussion and debate, I provided a little tutorial on presenting evidence to support a position.

~~~~

My stated position:

"We understand the propaganda system based on lies, blame, false accusations, bigotry, racism, and fear-mongering has been their tool for gaining that power...And most of all they are programmed to deny, demean, deflect, and distort what democrats, liberals or progressives say...We’ve seen it all over their media and in corporate media appeasers. “Brown invaders are coming to join the 'Democrat Party' to spread communism!” and "Libtards hate America and want us to be another Venezuela!"

Evidence offered to support my stated position:

Exhibit A:

“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.”- Ben Stein

Exhibit B:

“All that is true, it’s absolutely true, but it’s not just Cortez. Folks, this is what the Democrat Party has become.” - Rush Limbaugh

This only seemed to confuse our con-servative readers.

Rex wondered, “How is Mr. Stein wrong in his statement?”

It seems logical fallacies such as "slippery slope" and "begging the question" don't register with our friends on the Right.

I explained: “This is propaganda. Stein is essentially saying liberals are commies or Nazis. Same old BS. Stein is ignoring that little “democracy” thing. AOC is not demanding the demise of the Constitution. In fact, she took an oath to defend it. Stalin, Hitler and Mao rose to power by lies, propaganda and brute force, not promises to work for public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy.

This is classic fear-mongering and demonization. You see red-baiting as “truth”, because you want to see it that way. It is propaganda, you know.

In fact, there is NO link between public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy to a communist dictatorship. None. Only in the fevered fear-addled minds of the far Right.

Your problem boils down to this. “Providing for the general welfare” is a socialistic concept from the founders. It is not advocating a communist dictatorship.”

~~~~

We’ve seen how far they bend words to fit their own definition. Our con-servative contributor Rex declared, "Obama is just as authoritarian as Trump" for example.

“The authoritarian personality you so despise is unfortunately not something exclusive to the right. Obama was just as authoritarian as Trump is now. He forced a horrible health care reform on the public with bribes to senators and treachery on the behalf of Justice Roberts. Also, he insisted in no exclusions or conscience rights for those that did not wish to provide for abortions or birth control, like groups of nuns for God’s sake.”

My slightly edited response included: 

“Yes, Hillary is a liar and hypocrite. But she comes in a distant second to Trump. This is readily obvious. Trump openly threatened her with jail in a debate for God’s sake! If you think Obama was more authoritarian than that, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine.

If you think Obama was "just as authoritarian" for wanting to expand health care, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling Nazis “very fine people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling black NFL protestors “sons of bitches” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think Obama is "just as authoritarian" as the man who denied he was our lawful president, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling our free press the “enemy of the people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. “

Do you think my evidence to the contrary registered with them? Post-fact con-servatism dismisses and discredits all information that contradicts their opinions and beliefs. This exchange also illustrates their tactic of unilaterally defining terms.

Another example.

Rex stated,  “Obama was a tyrant for violating CONSTITUTIONAL rights to freedom of religion... nobody was imposing Catholicism or any other faith on anybody... a conscientious objection not to have to fund birth control or abortion-causing drugs”

My reply: “Um, yeah, it WAS Catholics and fundamentalists who got bent out of shape against insurers, not Catholics directly or specifically, funding birth control. Your definition of “Tyranny” is quite broad. Does it include jailing toddlers, too? No?”

As is my wont, I offered more documented supporting evidence:

CBS's Lesley Stahl asked Trump if he planned to continue bashing the media:

I said, you know that is getting tired, why are you doing this — you’re doing it over and over and it’s boring. He said, "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you."

(And the latest post-truth evil madness from the Big MAGAt finds him demeaning and dismissing his own department heads of intelligence as "passive, naive, wrong", and "should go back to school". Exactly what a post-truth authoritarian puppet of Putin would do.) 

There you have it. Post-fact con-servatism from the Big MAGAt himself. Demean and discredit are listed in my review of Authoritarian Tactics and Rules of Discourse.

Their parameters and frames of reference are defined for them, of course. It is assumed liberals, progressives and democrats are out to make the US another Venezuela. This is what translates into the "liberals hate America" and "Liberals are commies" conclusions.

Another of their fictional parameters offered by Rex was, "The left pits the have-nots against the haves".

To their ideology, this confirms our "Marxist agenda". What they cannot understand is we oppose the far Right wealthy interests that subvert our democracy to buy politicians in order to write laws and regulations that rig the system in their favor.

Many rich people are not in that club, so it is clearly not "class warfare" on our part. It is certainly class warfare on the part of the Right's economic elites. Warren Buffet made that clear. "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning".

Buffet’s words are dismissed, of course. All they need to do is simply regurgitate what their propagandists say. That is a lot easier than understanding the true intentions of their propaganda network. It is pitting have-nots against the other have-nots. As Trump declared,"I love the under-educated." 

Divide and conquer is the strategy, and it is made more effective with a powerful media complex at their disposal. Having an authoritarian celebrity as their leader is just icing on their cake.

Again I invite Rex, or anyone, to offer reason, facts and logic that disprove this analysis.

And as long they are a post-truth cult, they cannot do so.

Post-truth Con-servatism

Ben Franklin warned us about being able to keep our republic. His caution was warranted, although he could not have foreseen how post-truth Con-servatism would take power over our republic.

The Cult of Right Wing Authoritarian Personalities (C.R.A.P.) has finally taken our country. The racist birtherism and bigotry of their Leader, and the racist denial of the Black President’s Constitutional duty to appoint a Supreme Court Justice will imbue our nation a tragic darkness of the soul for decades to come.

We understand the propaganda system based on lies, blame, false accusations, bigotry, racism, and fear-mongering has been their tool for gaining that power.

MRI’s inform us that the con-servative brain is different from the brains of the the rest of the population. The Right’s effective propaganda tactics trigger their emotional responses in their over active amygdalas, the primitive fight or flight center of the brain.

I’ve long ranted their authoritarian ideology is founded on belief over fact and feelings over reason. These intellectual and moral failings are tragic character flaws in authoritarian personalities that prohibit communication, cooperation, and compromise. Not that they have any desire or need for these qualities, of course. This is why they embrace anti-democratic, vote suppressing, totalitarian rule by a far Right minority .

Thanks to the testimonials and commentary from our far Right friends, we have evidence of the foundation and operating principles of the post-truth Con-servative ideology that is destroying out representative democracy.

We cannot reason with them. They reject reason. We cannot convince them of the importance of facts and evidence, because they reject facts and evidence that do not conform to their propaganda.

Fair fact-based dialogue and reasoned discussion are out of the question because fair fact-based dialogue and reasoned discussion do not conform to their feelings and beliefs.

I tried in vain to help them disagree rationally with me.

Even after I offered a simple template for rebuttal, no con-servative has risen to the level of competence to apply it. 

“Dave, I have to say you are wrong in stating (_____) and claiming (_______). These facts (_____) and (____) suggest you are mistaken.”

They can't fill in the blanks because they have been indoctrinated to BE the blanks that Trump and FOX(R) fill. Their post-truth ideological beliefs, aka alternative facts, are selected for them by their cult leaders.

We may as well ask them to gather facts and think for themselves. Like that will happen. They are indoctrinated to distrust journalists, educators and scientists. And most of all they are programmed to deny, demean, deflect, and distort what democrats, liberals or progressives say. Any tactic will do, rather than enter into honest discussion.

Their cult leaders know just what feeds their fear, anger, hate and self-righteous arrogance.

We’ve seen it all over their media and in corporate media appeasers. “Brown invaders are coming to join the 'Democrat Party' to spread communism!” and "Libtards hate America and want us to be another Venezuela!"

It just FEELS so good for them to BELIEVE that C.R.A.P. In their propaganda-addled mentality this is "Owning the libs".

It's far easier and comforting for them to regurgitate Trump, FOX(R), Breitbart, Coulter and Limbaugh. It is the essence of far Right corporatist and white nationalist identity politics.

Their victory over truth and human decency is the Great American Tragedy.

Democrats may have the House. Trump may even be impeached. But they are not defeated. They will bring it all down if we let them.

I would like to offer these definitions for our con-servative readers. Or would that be an oxymoron? Well, anyway, for the literate among us:

Oxford: "Post-Truth. Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

Wiki: "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored."

This defines them. This defines Trump. This defines the Republican Party. This defines con-servatism.

Conclusion Confirmed

The evidence is in. Thanks to Rex, our conclusion is confirmed and verified. (It's not like they haven't confirmed this since Reagan attacked unions and put corporate shills in regulatory positions. But even Ronnie was too liberal for today's far Right Government Of Putin.)

Having it both ways is how the far Right mentality adapts to their universe of “alternative facts”. It is their own "Doctrine of Flexible Reality".

Rex kindly gave us this example:

“Dave, can you please tell me why Democrats voted for better enforcement and wall construction in the past but refuse to do so now that Trump is president? What has changed, other than who sits in the oval office?”

Yes, what has changed? 

His “facts”:

”The bottom line is that Pelosi and Schumer have been in congress over a combined fifty years. During that time, what have they ever done regarding the border? Nothing.”

This tactic of reality evasion really makes it impossible to engage in reasoned discussion and debate. Compromise and cooperation are out of the question when they jump around like little MAGA popcorn kernels in hot Trump oil. This is by design, of course. They want to “own the libs”, not engage in fair dialogue with mutual acceptance of reality, facts and evidence. That would be intolerable for those who wish to rule by a radical far Right minority’s over-represented influence. 

As they lie about us wanting to be like Venezuela, it is not a just and free representative democratic republic they want in the US. It is way more like Putin’s authoritarian plutocratic Russia. 

The question I have is this. How can they demand respect from anybody when all they do is blatantly lie, as they insult our intelligence, viciously attack journalism, demean our institutions, demonize educators, and deny science?

Where is their conscience? Where is their “religion” when it comes to the Eighth Commandment?

It all goes out the window in service to their far Right ideology. They are transformed into the embodiment of the right wing authoritarian personalities outlined in John Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience". 

It is a cult. They oppose the founders' humane and revolutionary ideal of consent of the governed. They are at war with our Constitution's civilizing mandate for taxes, regulation of commerce, and provision for the general welfare. Their ideology is dangerous to the environment, our air, our water, the planet, life, liberty, equality, democratic representation, and prosperity for most Americans.

Trump, the Republican Party, FOX(R) and their elite club are all good with that.

The Return Of Contrarious Con-servatism: The Inevitable Conclusion

Our final installment of the Return Of Contrarious Con-servatism continues from Rex’s politely worded question and my fact-based answer.

Well, that Polite Interlude went as expected. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by the response to our con-servative correspondent’s question.

After all, in his very first communication to me, he called me, "Little Davey",  a dick-head.  That touch of inter-personal charm alone tells us the chances of honest dialogue are nil.

Rex’s response, or retaliation, to the facts in answer to his question was, "Same old tired accusations and rhetoric".  This is the authoritarian tactic of projection, of course.

We recall this famous projection, “No puppet! No puppet! YOU”RE the puppet!”

Yeah, in their world facts are “rhetoric” and as demonstrated, their opinions are seen as facts.

Our studies of Con-servatism have shown Dismissal and Denial of fact and reason are common authoritarian tactics of discourse.

What we are doing here is proving the inevitable conclusion that there can be no good faith communication with these radical far Right ideologues.

As I have stated, we may as well be trying to tell a Moonie that their Republican cult leader is not Jesus. It’s the same as telling the Cult of Con-servatism that Republican Jesus didn’t really send Trump to save America.

As with all cults, emotion trumps reason, and beliefs trump facts. 

~~~~~~~

Rex:

Dave, regarding your question about Rashida, here is some help: (Link to a far Right Federalist opinion.)

As for playing my playing the race card, I am glad you picked up on that, Dave. Too bad you missed the point. It is okay for you and Jeff Davis to do it but you get all but-hurt if anyone from the right does it. I already admitted that Trump is a racist punk, so what’s your point? Woodrow Wilson was horribly racist, but to many on the left he was a wonderful progressive president that did “great” things in warping our nation. Racism is evil regardless of who does it. Calling someone a racist for political points is also evil.

And yes Dave, many of you on the left don’t want a wall because it is “racist”. That is bullshit. If the Canadian government was as corrupt as Mexico’s and people were fleeing into the U.S. across the northern border and bringing drugs, human trafficking etc. with them, then we would want a wall to keep out the lily white Canadians too. Many leftists simply want to expand the welfare state and have a path to citizenship for the southern illegals so that they can expand their power base. It isn’t out of benevolence that they do this but out of cynical partisanship. They use the cry of “racism” to bludgeon anyone that dares speak about limiting the flow of ILLEGAL immigration from the south. They use PC tactics in other words.

“Providing for the general welfare” does not mean what you and the left thinks it means. The constitution as our wonderful former president Obama stated, is a charter of negative liberties, as far as the government is concerned. It is interesting how the left sees the restrictions on government as negative liberties instead of seeing that it does this to ensure positive liberties for us little people out here in America. The federal government was ONLY authorized to do those very few specific things outlined in the constitution. All other duties and responsibilities are left to the states and the people. Your general welfare clause has been perverted to mean that the feds can now do anything the left wants regardless of whether it exceeds the limitations placed on the government in the constitution. I don’t expect you to understand, let alone agree with me.

Yeah, I read your “conservative” article. Nice of you to tell me what I think, particularly (based on your fictional novella) you got nearly every single point wrong. Nice propaganda though. Maybe you could sell that fish wrapper to the Daily Kooks. My assumptions about what the left thinks is based on what they say and more importantly what they are doing. Some few idiots on the right fringes do stupid shit and you think that comprises the whole ideology. Must be the fear in your amygdala kicking in there, Skippy.

Also, try reading the New Testament instead of citing old Jewish law. Christ came along and became the fulfillment of the law in his teachings. Nice try though. Oh, and abusing religion in old Sam Clemmon’s quotes suggests that you think you are far more moral than those that believe and try to live by something greater than themselves… and no… I don’t mean your federal government. Might want to tell Kamala Harris and some of your Democrat reps that whole thing about the religious test being in the constitution, by the way. That idiot keeps wanting to deny seats on the bench to people just because they are Catholic.

It is a damned shame the Democrats insist on hurting people because they refuse to secure the border. Their hate of Trump far outweighs doing the right thing for the nation and their constituents.

==

Dave Dubya:

Rex,

I appreciate your thoughtful offering of the link. I do. It helps me see who formed your opinion.

“Tlaib’s endorsement of a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and comments supporting the left-wing boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement.”

And this, according to the far Right Federalist, means she is “anti-Semitic”. He decided they are all anti-Semitic because he quotes a Palestinian-American’s opinion. 

That’s what you got? A Federalist opinion intended to fuel anger? How emotion-based can you get? Very con-servative. ( The Federalist published an opinion piece defending Roy Moore’s dating of teenagers while he was in his 30s and arguing that such behavior was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”)

This is a common tactic of the far Right. They love to accuse those who disagree with the Israeli Right and their treatment of Palestinians as being “anti-Semitic”. Never mind some of us are Jews and most of us have Jewish friends.

We get a lot of broad accusations unsupported by factual evidence. The word of a conservative is all it takes for them to absorb as absolute truth. Look at their Leader for God’s sake!

Never mind. What good will real examples do in the face of Right wing, ideologically based opinion?

And speaking of missing the point, there you go again with the IOKIAR bit.

"I already admitted that Trump is a racist punk, so what’s your point?"

My point was it’s OK for you to say that, but not for anti-Trumpists.

“Calling someone a racist for political points is also evil”

We get that a lot. WE”RE the evil racists for calling out Trump’s racist birtherism.

But I DO thank you for agreeing that Trump is an evil racist.

No wonder you have a deep emotional need for false equivalence and to project that unto liberals.

”...many of you on the left don’t want a wall because it is 'racist'.”

Thanks for telling us what we think again. And no. Most agree it is wasteful and unnecessary to build a wall across the entire border. We have walls already, so this is really a dispute over degree. What you prefer, of course, is to accuse liberals of wanting unsecure borders so we get more voters. Thanks, Rush and FOX(R) for telling us what we think.

Do you NOT understand that is Right wing propaganda? Obviously you do not. Is any conservative opinion a fact to you?

Another example:

"They use the cry of “racism” to bludgeon anyone that dares speak about limiting the flow of ILLEGAL immigration from the south.”

No evidence to support the accusation. Again, opinion is fact.

“ 'Providing for the general welfare' does not mean what you and the left thinks it means."

And thanks for being our new authority on, not only what we think, but the Constitution as well. You don’t disappoint.

Since Mr. Paine is no longer with us, you might be designated our new “Mr. Constitution”.

Thank you for your lecture. It is mostly your opinion, and again unsupported by evidence. You didn’t even quote the Constitution, as I did.

"The federal government was ONLY authorized to do those very few specific things outlined in the constitution.”

And that is my point. Taxes, regulation of commerce and the general welfare are all included. You don’t like that so you want to unilaterally re-define terms.

You accuse liberals, without evidence again, of having “perverted” views that concur with Supreme Court rulings. I would suggest what has been perverted is the definition of free speech and corporate person-hood.

But obviously you know what I think.

 "Yeah, I read your “conservative” article. Nice of you to tell me what I think,”

Do you mean this? “They believe they are defending liberty, religious freedom and capitalism, instead of repression, inequality, and corporatism.”

Your words have made my point.

 "Here’s a tip, Einstein; just because someone believes in capitalism, morality, and liberty (in other words conservatism) that doesn’t make him a racist.”

Complete with the far Right Victim Card tactic, no less.

Then I went on to cite the repression, inequality, and corporatism imposed by your corporate sponsors and their Party.

 "you got nearly every single point wrong.”

And yet you couldn’t offer one bit of evidence as proof? 

Maybe you need help with a format?

Try this:

“Dave, I have to say you are wrong in stating (_____) and claiming (_______). These facts (_____) and (____) suggest you are mistaken.”

What does it take with your side? It’s called communication. I suppose that is meaningless to an ideology that rejects compromise.

"That idiot keeps wanting to deny seats on the bench to people just because they are Catholic."

How many are Catholics now, again?  Victim card again.

But It’s OK If You’re A Republican to deny the Black President his Constitutional duty to appoint a Justice.

Very “not racist”, of course. Can’t be going there. No sireee.

"It is a damned shame the Democrats insist on hurting people because they refuse to secure the border. Their hate of Trump far outweighs doing the right thing for the nation and their constituents."

And one more wild-eyed, spiteful, anger inciting, evidence-free false accusation.

No. You do not disappoint.

This is con-servatism.

A Polite Interlude...

For respite from the mud pit, I'd like to share this polite exchange that shows the possibility of communication across the chasm. Contrast the tone of the recent question with that of the previous harsher, "Do you lefties care more about political correctness than protecting innocent Americans"? 

That tone was lifted directly from the Trump/RNC Party line, which isn't the best approach to constructive dialogue. 

The more recent question is more civil and less suggestive of the 'liberals don't want to protect innocent Americans" propaganda. 

Enjoy the truce while we have it.

~~~~~~~

Rex:

Dave, can you please tell me why Democrats voted for better enforcement and wall construction in the past but refuse to do so now that Trump is president? What has changed, other than who sits in the oval office? If there is truly a relevant fact I am missing, please enlighten me. Otherwise, this smacks of nothing more than petty partisanship on behalf of Schumer, Pelosi, and the Democrats.

==

Dave Dubya:

Rex,
I'm happy to answer your politely delivered question. Thank you.

The relevant facts that I see are these:

1. Both the House and Senate voted for a CR that included funding for border security.

2. Trump was about to sign it, then the voices of his far Right base called him a coward.

3. Trump proudly claims the shutdown as his own. Trump is the ONLY one who is refusing to compromise.

Your question was framed upon the correct premise that Dems voted for border security in the past. If "open borders" was their real goal, why would they care to fund security improvements?

As noted in Fact 1, there was border security funding in the bill Trump backed out of, like a coward, cowering to Ann Coulter and Limbaugh.

The fact remains the Dems are not refusing to approve border funding. They ARE refusing $50 billion for Trump's wall. It is an ill-defined and ever-changing demand. He is holding our government hostage to this demand. Real Americans are paying the consequences, not Mexico.

Most Americans agree on not giving Trump that money for his stupid campaign promise for his fantasy wall and BS about Mexico paying for it. Where's the pesos?

In fact, representatives of EVERY district bordering on Mexico don't want Trump to get his $50 billion wall.

One more fact to remember is Schumer offered $25 billion in border security, (Not his wall) in exchange for relenting on DACA. Remember when Trump said, "I love the Dreamers!"?

Trump REFUSED to compromise. Now he blames Democrats. This is that authoritarian personality thing I keep harping about.

I hope you find these facts helpful.

Facts. We liberals and moderates along with journalists, scientists and teachers use them all the time. ;-)

Those on the far Right generally choose their "alternative facts".

This is big problem reflected by the many futile attempts made to communicate and compromise with the Right.

I also believe communication is best accomplished through polite discourse by mutually accepted facts, evidence and definitions of terms.

I can dream, can't I?