Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Observation, obvious

Whenever a mainstream liberal argues for the greatness of a given political figure, the liberal's evidence will almost invariably be a speech given or statement made or article written by the political figure, and almost never an actual action taken by that figure.

HELLO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN

12 comments:

Jack Crow said...

Ideological liberalism is a series of (assumed) grand gestures, bereft of substance, because political liberalism, which does have substance, looks a whole lot like political conservatism, but without the open bigotry?

what the Tee Vee taught said...

Yep, good call. Also,

That speech, statement, or article was written, edited, and polished by... who? A team of public relations weasels.

Anonymous said...

similarly, when libs consider someone worthy of open derision, it's usually because of a speech or an interview or some other form of tv show.

so happy to have found you dudes this last year. gimme another good one, alright?

Richard said...

Dunno, it seems to me that liberals spend a lot of time praising actions, but they tend to either get the action wrong, or its import wrong, or its value. So, you know, Obama's health care plan is, to some, an actual good act he's done. They're just wrong about it being good. Just as many liberals praised Clinton for "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo, or for "ending welfare as we know it". But fuck that. Or, LBJ gets all kinds of credit for his civil rights record, such as the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Acts, but a) those were the end points of decades of action from below and b) the fact that they were end points is not a point in their favor, as they encouraged the sense that the struggle was over, etc. So liberals are wrong both in ascribing them as positive action taken by LBJ and about them being a unqualified goods.

Though it's true, liberals do love them some empty speeches.

Rachel said...

Mostly they confuse words with actions, or at least assume that actions must and do necessarily follow from words. I had a very confusing debate with someone over this once - "But he [Obama] closed Guantanamo!" "No he didn't! It's still open!" whereupon he rolled his eyes at me, raised his hands to the sky, and told me I was being unreasonably demanding and that nothing happens overnight.

Rachel said...

Which is to say, the word is the action, for him. I think it's a similar mentality to people who honestly seem to think (in arguments over Bradley Manning, etc.) that if the government is prohibited by law from doing something, that somehow means they are actually physically incapable of doing it.

Ethan said...

Thanks everyone--especially anonymous, that's so nice of you.

Richard, you're right, although I think the reason that liberals so easily misinterpret actions is that they pay attention to what people say about them--i.e., it was a humanitarian intervention because Clinton said so, the health care thing is good because it's called the Affordable Health Care Act, duh, of course it's good, that kind of thing--rather than what the actions actually accomplish. Maybe it's just me trying to make myself right by a technicality, but does it make sense?

Rachel, the word is the action strikes me as very accurate.

bonobo said...

the liberal's evidence will almost invariably be a speech given or statement made

Boy you said it, Ethan. Is there a greater living testament to that theory than the current prez? First, the keynote in 2004 and later the so-called 'anti-war' speech that got trotted out to prove his peace bona fides against Hillary, despite his virtually identical voting record on war funding. Then we got the race speech that everyone raved about. The upshot is, these are crappy, vapid, cliche-riddled, thoroughly doctrinaire speeches if you just read the transcript. They don't even qualify as high-minded deceit.

It's all about symbols, sounds and performance and that's why Richard's point about actions is not really at odds with yours. The health bill, for instance, is a theft wrapped in the symbology of a social welfare measure. In essence it's the speeches about the bill and not the bill itself that matters to the idiots that have been snookered by it.

I have always hated speeches and speechmakers myself.

bonobo said...

Duh. Just saw that my second paragraph was all said better by others previously. Sad thing is, I actually read everything first. My feeble mind. . .

Should also second nony's kudos. Started reading lots of new lefty blogs this year and this is one of my faves. Great mix of humor, brains and topics. You're also uncommonly nice to your commenters.

Ethan said...

Thanks so much bonobo! And, to belatedly respond to one of your other recent comments, I don't consider you despicable, haha.

Anyway, I don't have anything to add to the substance of your comment except for "yes!" and that I don't think it was redundant.

Ethan said...

As far as supposedly being nice to my commenters, well, I often don't feel like I am...but anyway, the reason I do this (bluggling) is to have conversations with sympathetic but not identical people, so, that's what I try to do.

AlanSmithee said...

That's the toughest concept to get through to the average pwog - that words don't mean shit without actions to back them up. Pwogs are hung up on labels and brands, thinking they mean something in and of themselves. As a wise man once said: "Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

And, yeah, this is an epic blog, Ethan.