The State of the Conservative Voice in the Forum and the Nation

[deejaydana]

argument[/u] about "the board is more left; the board is more right", currently . I, and most others, have already stated that currently the board has more active apparently "left-leaning" active posters, though I think exploring why (beyond "it's just a bunch of typical libs") is certainly germane to the OP/topic.

I boil it down to something this simple Jumbo: At its heart, this message board is based upon sports and as such attracts a (generally speaking, of course) younger set of eyeballs. Younger people tend to be more liberal and as such you find more liberal voices, more often than conservative. This is neither a complaint nor any kind of criticism. Heck, I was liberal myself once. Then I graduated college

[Jumbo]

I boil it down to something this simple Jumbo: At its heart, this message board is based upon sports and as such attracts a (generally speaking, of course) younger set of eyeballs. Younger people tend to be more liberal and as such you find more liberal voices, more often than conservative. This is neither a complaint nor any kind of criticism. Heck, I was liberal myself once. Then I graduated college

deejay, I agree in theory, though factually many of the more notable posters here in the tailgate generally identified as left or liberal (more than not, anyway) are not of that younger set.

the younger set in here that are active in political threads seem (as gathered data also indicates) to be more libertarian than either right or left, at least by a larger ratio than the general population. of course, being an older coot, "younger" may mean something different to me. :pfft:

the main theme of topic here, finding out what the tailgate politicos (right, left, and other) think of how legitimate any proposed or perceived deterioration of the (intelligent) conservative "voice" or "public face" in here and in the national discourse may be (and I gave examples of what I felt might support such a claim), remains difficult to establish.

Yet I (repeating myself) am very pleasantly surprised how many people so articulately, and for far and away most part in a very benign tone, chose to address the topic in a meaningful and thoughtful manner. it's extra tough even beyond the inherent difficultly of the subject as there are so many tempting side-issues that inevitably arise as we have seen, mostly of the "one side vs the other" nature on many individual issues, and most quite legitimate in their own right. I thought if this thread went 4-5 pages it would be lucky.

[deejaydana]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Jumbo, as always. I would counter here by saying that conservative voices are out there and they're both healthy and not (at least from my viewpoint) bat **** crazy in the least. The following contributors I find incredibly relevant and on top of current events: Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, John Stossell and Paul Ryan. Now, I will admit that the first 3 will be readily lumped into the libertarian camp but they certainly could be grouped easily within the Conservative movement and epouse conservative views. I sincerely believe a trick has been played upon some liberals (and conservatives alike on the coin's other side). It goes like this: buy into thinking that that the opposition is incapable of moderation and evolution as a party/group. It makes it easier to stick to your guns when you dismiss opposing or even somewhat differing by degree viewpoints. I suppose we're all guilty of this in general. Doesn't that happen (on occasion and not with regularity here in the Tailgate?) So, in closing I'll say Conservatism is alive and well (if not within the Tailgate then abroad within the country.)

[Jumbo]

I like that response, djd. It appeals to the bigger part of me that underlies the surface cynic. Contrary to what a few less perceptive types here might think, I want to believe that a strong intelligent and reasonable contingent lives in both major parties (hell, in all groups, ideally). I will accept those you mentioned, qualifiers included, as fairly representational of at least a sizable segment of conservatism today. I have mentioned many times how I miss William F. Buckley, Jr, but how I think George Will is trying his best to follow in those footsteps. I'd add him to that list.

I still see what I see as described earlier, both in the forum and "out there", and that is not easily dismissed. I still hold that there has been a lower bar set and accepted by another large segment of the right in the last couple years or so (I think since Palin's appearance, at least).

And to quote Yoda :pfft: and suffer my ego again, "my own counsel will I keep" in the end regarding this matter. Nonetheless, the counsel I have received here reading these posts and through re-examining matters with refreshed effort has moderated the severity of my position.

I do think, and really always have, that a significant segment of the "right-side" demographic holds many sane, smart, and worthy folk who are quite unlike the more visible, noisy, and extreme pack that gets the spotlight while claiming to represent them.

[Thiebear]

Really? Could you tell us when we said this? We don't remember us ever speaking thus.

I have no idea what you just said.

I could have sworn reading that the state legislature of Arizona put a measure on the ballot to define human life as beginning at conception.

Somehow that looks like an attempt to ban abortion, to me.

And I seem to recall reading, when that abortion doctor got killed, that in the US, third trimester abortions are already illegal, nationwide, unless TWO doctors certify, in writing, that either there is no chance of the fetus surviving, or that the mother's health was endangered. (And that, even in those cases, there were only three doctors in the US willing to perform them, and one of the three was the one who got killed.).

And I seem to recall politicians vowing to repeal every regulation passed under Democratic administrations.

Funny, I seem to recall a concept that separate but equal, wasn't.

And funny, I live in a state where it is now written into the state constitution, that not only are gays not permitted to marry, but they are forbidden (paraphrasing from memory) "any state which would be substantially equivalent to marriage".

Again, I'm quite aware that a great many Republicans say hat they're moderate. (And I believe that they're sincere, when they say it). But, what the Republicans actually PASS, into law, once they get elected? Doesn't appear so moderate, to me.

Just like all of your other replies this isn't about you personally, many on this board give candidate Obama a pass.

Cafferty showed the Right is more religious, thus more religious stuff happens in the primaries and seems crazy to us normal people.

DId the measure in 1 state pass? No, then we are still working on the thought that most of us want a civil discussion.

Can you cite where one administration repealled every law from the previous or is this another throw away comment having nothing to do with my statement about us 83%ers.

Getting married before a Judge (civil union) doesn't deny anyone anything that getting married in Lighthouse Baptist Church of no dancing ever gives you?

And your examples shows again: You will take 1 incident to show extremism as the rule.

[Wrong Direction]

I sincerely believe a trick has been played upon some liberals (and conservatives alike on the coin's other side). It goes like this: buy into thinking that that the opposition is incapable of moderation and evolution as a party/group. It makes it easier to stick to your guns when you dismiss opposing or even somewhat differing by degree viewpoints. I suppose we're all guilty of this in general.

I think this is a fact that has always been the case, but is amplified with modern media and the ability to reach so many people directly.

On Jumbo's post (which I can't quote), I think the good voices of conservatism go well beyond what Jumbo or djd mention. What I find difficult is the distinction between what is a philosophical disagreement, and the painting of someone or some position as crazy.

I refer again to that Obama thread where a poster discounted an article by the Weekly Standard. I think that's the wrong way to address things. There are very legitimate disagreements with their positions, or those of neocons, and the WS positions might in fact be terrible and deadly. However, like it or not, they are intellectually based positions, not just crazy talk. IMO, those positions can/should be attacked on substance, not simply on source because, when you're summarily discounting an intellectual source, now you've totally limited your ability to hear and understand how the other side thinks, and that's a very bad thing.

I could remove MSNBC from my life and never care, but I'd be doing myself a disservice if I don't at least find some source for modern day liberalism. If all I do is watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I don't have knowledge of an issue, then of course I will be slanted to the right. I think this is what some right wingers on this board and many in society in general have done. I don't think they'll ever give Obama a chance on any particular issue because they'll never honestly consider that side. And, IMO, those folks are being generalized to the entire Republican party unfairly, because the thinkers at NRO, WS, the heritage foundation, CATO, members of Congress, etc., are being discounted due to disagreements, rather than due to craziness.

By the way, I think the left does exactly what the right is doing. I think the tactics are slightly different, but they both have almost exactly the same battle plan. I bet there's millions of R's out there who think the D's are just as crazy and out of touch as the D's think R's are.

[Henry]

I boil it down to something this simple Jumbo: At its heart, this message board is based upon sports and as such attracts a (generally speaking, of course) younger set of eyeballs. Younger people tend to be more liberal and as such you find more liberal voices, more often than conservative. This is neither a complaint nor any kind of criticism. Heck, I was liberal myself once. Then I graduated college

I don't think that's it. This board also attracts male sports fans which is hardly a liberal demographic.

[deejaydana]

I like many of those point Henry. Yes, I regularly watch more left leaning news outlets, MSNBC, and to a lesser degree CNN because I think you do yourself a disservice but not taking in news from disparate points of view. I also should have mentioned Cato and the Heritage Foundation because they are outstanding and well reasoned Conservative outlets and in no way "crazy" to boot.

Regarding my take on a younger audience, I still stand by that from the simple standpoint that younger people have more time to devote to following sports. Younger people trend more liberal generally. Not that I want to get myself into trouble generalizing, doing that afterall cuts to the heart of this whole issue.

[Goaldeje]

From someone who has been a member for a while, but infrequent poster as of late, I would posit that the board is decidedly more left-leaning right now. A nice counter-balance to... elsewhere. I will echo what others have said, in that it is a shame that no matter where you go these days, it becomes increasingly difficult to find intelligent, rational discussion anymore. More often than not, the debates degenerate into name calling and other follishness instead of productive discourse.

But I find that to be the case in MANY different places; this place is by no means the worst.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I like many of those point Henry. Yes, I regularly watch more left leaning news outlets, MSNBC, and to a lesser degree CNN because I think you do yourself a disservice but not taking in news from disparate points of view.

I think people do themselves a disservice by watching cable news of any stripe. Period. Pure trash. The world would be a better place without the cable news networks.

I used to be right there watching them like everyone else. Fox, MSNBC, all of it. Now the closest I get to cable news is the Daily Show, and I feel I'm better off for it. These days there are so many reputable places to get honest news, there's no reason to submerge yourself in trash.

(I feel like I'm talking about hip hop. "Built for the masses" = trash, I suppose).

[quote name=Goaldeje

8682890]From someone who has been a member for a while, but infrequent poster as of late, I would posit that the board is decidedly more left-leaning right now. A nice counter-balance to... elsewhere. I will echo what others have said, in that it is a shame that no matter where you go these days, it becomes increasingly difficult to find intelligent, rational discussion anymore. More often than not, the debates degenerate into name calling and other follishness instead of productive discourse.

But I find that to be the case in MANY different places; this place is by no means the worst.

The internet can be a disgusting, vile place. And the saddening part is, it's nost prominent on sites that regular folks and kids frequently use; like a youtube. For example, as far as I remember, I experienced/witnessed racism firsthand once in my life* before the internet came around. Now I can't even watch a video of a sleeping panda without multiple comments about Asians. I wonder how much of it is real and how much is trolling.

*I was probably 10 or 11 and we were in Tennesse on the Va border for some little league baseball tourney. In the hotel lobby, several older white male locals were talking about the ongoing college football season, specifically Peyton Manning and the Heisman Trophy. "Oh he's tearing it up out there. He deserves it. But you know they're gonna give it to that n****r up in Michigan. They always like giving it to a n****e.". God Bless Northern Virginia and the DC area. I had never heard that word used like that in person in my life (and still haven't in this area). Sadly, tthats fairly tame for the internet--even for youtube.

[mcsluggo]

I think people do themselves a disservice by watching cable news of any stripe. Period. Pure trash. The world would be a better place without the cable news networks.

I used to be right there watching them like everyone else. Fox, MSNBC, all of it. Now the closest I get to cable news is the Daily Show, and I feel I'm better off for it. These days there are so many reputable places to get honest news, there's no reason to submerge yourself in trash.

(I feel like I'm talking about hip hop. "Built for the masses" = trash, I suppose).

The internet can be a disgusting, vile place. And the saddening part is, it's nost prominent on sites that regular folks and kids frequently use; like a youtube. For example, as far as I remember, I experienced/witnessed racism firsthand once in my life* before the internet came around. Now I can't even watch a video of a sleeping panda without multiple comments about Asians. I wonder how much of it is real and how much is trolling.

*I was probably 10 or 11 and we were in Tennesse on the Va border for some little league baseball tourney. In the hotel lobby, several older white male locals were talking about the ongoing college football season, specifically Peyton Manning and the Heisman Trophy. "Oh he's tearing it up out there. He deserves it. But you know they're gonna give it to that n****r up in Michigan. They always like giving it to a n****e.". God Bless Northern Virginia and the DC area. I had never heard that word used like that in person in my life (and still haven't in this area). Sadly, tthats fairly tame for the internet--even for youtube.

i think the greater communication (the internet) allows people to express their individual bigotted statements more widely-- and it is even encouraged by the annonomous nature of it all--- but systemically, i think the internet (and communication in general) mostly dampen bigotry overall over time.... i think! ( i hope)

[Jumbo]

It just occurred to me that, in the finest tradition of the tailgate, I should refuse to accept any new information, insight, facts, or presentations that don't match 100% with everything I already thought and simply continue thinking exactly whatever it is I thought before engaging in any exchange.

My problem: is it best to hit "enter" before or after I arrive at that decision consciously and how do I know when I started knowing something I already know?

And is thinking about something "consciously" wrong? It seems like it should be from what I can tell. :confused:

[DCsportsfan53]

*I was probably 10 or 11 and we were in Tennesse on the Va border for some little league baseball tourney. In the hotel lobby, several older white male locals were talking about the ongoing college football season, specifically Peyton Manning and the Heisman Trophy. "Oh he's tearing it up out there. He deserves it. But you know they're gonna give it to that n****r up in Michigan. They always like giving it to a n****e.". God Bless Northern Virginia and the DC area. I had never heard that word used like that in person in my life (and still haven't in this area). Sadly, tthats fairly tame for the internet--even for youtube.

I had the same experience when I lived in NC for a period of time, it was quite the culture shock. White people hung out with white people and tossed the N word around like it was going out of style. I had never experienced that growing up in the DMV.

[Wrong Direction]

i think the greater communication (the internet) allows people to express there individual bigotted statements more widely-- and it is even encouraged by the annonomous nature of it all--- but systemically, i think the internet (and communication in general) mostly dampen bigotry overall over time.... i think! ( i hope)

Yeah, the ignorant voices are more brave on the internet, so they're more visible. However, the anti-ignorant folks are also more brave, so the smack downs of bigoted statements are swift. I also think (hope) this will have a positive effect over time. Sometimes we forget we're still in a relatively new place with respect to information sharing. Hopefully the ugliness on the net is a passing quirk of the system that is being weeded out over time. Obviously, some boards like this one are better at taking no crap from vile posters, so the smack down is useful.